On 17/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:>
You mean, rather than just lower the now-ridiculous requirements at RFA?
That approach has a record of at least 2 years of total failure.
I'm now going through the RFAs noting opposes that are irrelevant to the question "is this user safe with the tools? are they going to go nuts?" and suggesting they be ignored. Others are welcome to do so as well.
- d.