On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > Well said Peter. Josh, can you speak to whether or not there are
> > other parties involved in the press release that need us to keep the
> > discussion secret? If so then I think we need to respect that desire,
> > but I'm not sure if that is actually the case. Peter, given your
> > analogy, I think Josh can take the discussion about a press release
> > off-list in order to get something of quality put together and then
> > post that for public review before sending it out (like someone
> > saying I want to code feature x, getting a few guys to help him on
> > it, and then posting the results to patches before it gets included).
> > Do you see any problems with that?
>
> I don't even have a problem if on occasion the actual text of the press
> release, or the name of the external partner, or actual locations or
> amounts are not revealed ahead of time. But it's only fair that the
> group affected by the press release (say, hackers or www or advocacy or
> jdbc) gets to know the general idea and gets to discuss it. Maybe this
> press release is that a company wants to sponsor a particular feature,
> but then after the press release it turns out that 9 out of 10
> developers think the feature is stupid? How does that make us look?
Who cares? If the resultant patch isn't considered acceptable by the
community, it just won't get applied *shrug*
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
