Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
John,
I'd characterize it just as a difference of opinion in regards to our
respective preferred approaches.
Adam
At 11:25 AM 8/29/2001 -0400, John F. Sowa wrote:
>I endorse Matthew's comment:
>
>AP> I think my stance is simply the as you say that "anyone who
> > > proposes a new
> > > feature has a responsibility
> > > to explain the importance of that feature and why it should be
> > > adopted". I'm not defending SUMO, just requesting that whoever says
> > > something is wrong with it must say precisely what it wrong
> > > (in terms of
> > > its terms or axioms), and provide a revision to the document.
> >
>MW> The first of these is reasonable. The second isn't. Defects don't
>stop
> > being defects just because the person who finds a defect doesn't have
> > a fix.
>
>Adam is acting like a building contractor who has told his crew
>to get busy laying the foundation and building the superstructure,
>while people like Pat H., Chris P., Robert K., and me are trying
>to tell him that the architect hasn't finished drawing up the plans.
>
>Then Adam responds to our comments by asking us to point out any
>cracks or splinters in what his crew is building.
>
>There is a serious breakdown in communication.
>
>John Sowa
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571