Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:13:52 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: terry@lambert.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <199609052013.NAA09771@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <6820.841927320@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Sep 5, 96 05:42:00 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Once again: Richard wants you to accept (or help correct) his definition > > of "problem x". Then he wants to have a definition of "acceptable > > soloutions to the class of problems of which "problem x" is a member. > > Yes, we know, can we please end this now? We are NOT approaching a > resolution and the last 5 exchanges have shown, if anything, that > we're getting farther away from one. Try addressing the issue Richard is asking you to address instead of the issue that you want to address, and we will approach a resoloution, if only an agreement to disagree. > Call it the status quo, call it inertia, call it a core team plot > against you and Richard personally, I really don't care. Multiple > people have told you the ONLY way in which change will work, you argue > that this is impractical, fine. Let's agree to disagree and move on. > You're not going to "win" this one by out-stubborning anyone. I argue that the artificial constraints implicit in the statement "the ONLY way in which change will work" assume that the change will be implemented in the existing framework. This tends to fail to accomplish anything when it is the existing framework we are trying to change. Quit holding the existing framework sacrosanct, and you and Richard will be able to find a common grounds for discussion. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609052013.NAA09771>