On 8/13/07, Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
"Anthony" wikitech@inbox.org wrote in message news:71cd4dd90708131131k36ef2c17k39d1aae4234b7311@mail.gmail.com...
On 8/13/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
wrote:
I guess what has to happen before this can really be discussed is we need to drop the hypotheticals and come up with a semi-accurate list of actual conflicts. If a good portion of the conflicts are actually causing problems, then it's one thing. If most of them are just good faith collisions which wouldn't have even been discovered were it not for SUL, then it's another.
As far as I am aware, the time for discussion ended months, if not a year ago, and now it is simply a matter of waiting for the implementation to be completed. If that is the case (and correct me if it isn't) then this whole conversation is somewhat pointless.
Considering that until a few weeks ago I (who follow the relevant mailing lists rather closely) didn't even know what exactly SUL was, I have to say that I don't think that is the case. A great many people right now still don't know what this whole SUL thing means. The documentation on it is inconsistent. Tons of misinformation is being spread.
When was this discussion period announced?
I don't think it's too late. It certainly won't be too late before user accounts start getting forcibly renamed, and even after that we could probably still change our minds.