On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:44:44 +0000 "Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg@c4inet.net> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:08:29PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
For instance, what about the suggested implementation is onerous or oppressive? Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once accepted, the implementation is out of the hands of this community or indeed everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and oppressive as they want.
within the implementation. (wherein there is nothing onerous or oppressive - as all seem to agree...)
Furthermore, from the general tenor of this discussion I can't help assuming that 2017-02 won't be the end of it and I have to take this into account when considering the (de)merits of 2017-02.
to object because you may object in the future to something unspecified or unknown is the same as just objecting for the sake of objecting.
Also one point I raised remains so far entirely unaddressed - why does a proposal and its implementation plan prescribe the use of email (in 2018!) for contact information?
because everyone has email. not everyone has telegram, whatsup, insertnameofyourcommshere or simply 'trusts' all java(script)/apps from wherever... Regards Andre