On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of the recommendations on improving the software were incorporated, thus our recommendation that it not proceed so rapidly.
I respect what you are saying here, very much. But I think the right approach is always "release early, release often". There is no need to rush, but there is also no reason not to release fixes as they are available, because there is no particular "ship date" with marketing, etc.
It's pretty hard to maintain motivation, though, when it's clear that the software's going to be a permanent feature regardless of what the project does or thinks, and that any further "trial" is not going to change that fact.
I think that's very very far from true. I think that everything the Foundation has said, and everything that I have said, and everything that (nearly) everyone on all sides has said, indicates nearly 100% universal agreement that in order for the feature to be enabled permanently, it has to achieve consensus.
Consensus is not a "hold one vote and give up if you don't make it" process, but rather an iterative give-and-take.
If I believed that the current version was the best that the Foundation could deliver, I would be adamant about just shutting down PC as soon as is practical, and believe that the right way forward would be to push for major expansion of the use of semi-protection. I would hate to do that, because I think that a well-implemented PC is a better solution than semi-protection, striking a better balance.
My point is this: I think it very far from a foregone conclusion that we will have PC in use in the longterm. It has to improve a lot before that can happen. The early signs, though, are that it was popular.
--Jimbo