On 09/04/14 08:26, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
I agree with everything Risker said. I go further and suggest the team involved stops defending their goals and implementation. The former are not the issue, and the latter was indefensible. I havent looked at how much testing was done, or if there was some staging of the rollout, but it is clear that it wasnt careful enough.
While I agree in general, I'm not even sure about that, that the goals weren't the issue - do we even know what the goals /were/, or the issues that they were trying to address? I've asked, and seen others ask, several times in multiple venues, and I've yet to see a real answer. The most anyone has been able to produce (usually Steven, I think, so I'll thank him for at least trying) have been things like that it looks better or it's more consistent, but that would be like a security person only saying their change makes things more secure, and explaining 'because security' in the commit message. Sure, it might be true, but it's completely useless if you're trying to work with it, or test it exhaustively. We need to know what the issue really was, too, or we can't possibly have any real discussion or collaboration. With security, it's communicated - we just saw that with announcements of the heartbleed exploit. Why isn't it with design?
So, yeah, the goals are probably noble enough, but we don't even know that for sure. There's a gulf here, and it's just getting worse.
-I