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
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.