RE: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
I endorse John's endorsement of Matthew's comment - if that is allowed under
IEEE/RR rules without a vote!!
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of John
Sent: 29 August 2001 17:25
To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
Cc: Adam Pease; Philip Jackson; Yang Yun; email@example.com;
Subject: Re: SUO: 2000-7-26 example
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
> 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.