However, I believe that there has been a lack of focus in the development of the patch thus far in a couple of key areas - first in terms of articulating how it is different from and better than a writeable security barrier view, and second on how to manage the security and operational aspects of having a feature like this. I think that the discussion subsequent to my June 10th email has let to some good discussion on both points, which was my intent, but I still think much more time and thought needs to be spent on those issues if we are to have a feature which is up to our usual standards. I do apologize to anyone who interpreted that initial as a pure rant, because it really wasn't intended that way. Contrariwise, I hope that the people defending this patch will admit that the issues I am raising are real and focus on whether and how those concerns can be addressed.
I absolutely appreciate all of the feedback that has been provided. It has been educational. To your point above, I started putting together a wiki page, as Stephen has spoken to, that is meant to capture these concerns and considerations as well as to capture ideas around solutions.
This page is obviously not complete, but I think it is a good start. Hopefully this document will help to continue the conversation and assist in addressing all the concerns that have been brought to the table. As well, I hope that this document serves to demonstrate our intent and that we *are* taking these concerns seriously. I assure you that as one of the individuals who is working towards the acceptance of this feature/patch, I am very much concerned about meeting the expected standards of quality and security.
