On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Bill Studenmund wrote:

# The problem though is that we aren't saying, "here's the PAM or BSD-auth
# or whatever frameowrk I plan on committing," we're at the stage of saying,
# "this is the direction we want to go." The details you elude to above
# haven't been set, so how can we reasonably talk about them? I'm not saying
# they are unimportant. I'm saying now is not the time to argue them. Maybe
# express them as concerns to they are kept in mind.

That's quite valid, really.

I'll confess to being something of a dinosaur, a creature of comfort.
Change bugs me regardless, but if it seems like it will be a win
in my own situation (of course!  how many of us really are altruistic
about this?  Really.), I can live with it.  I wasn't too fond of rc.d
either, but in the long run, I've found it much easier to deal with.

# This general theme has played out via many actors on many of the lists,
# and really hurts the project. Folks get worried about implementation
# details (perhaps very valid ones), and end up arguing against direciton
# choices rather than helping do a given direction right. The main effect is
# to actually make folks NOT write code, so we get nowhere. :-(

When we examine the GSoT, it turns out that the movement of change
really has several parties:

	The people who have thought about it before implementing it,

	The people who look at the change and argue their technical concerns
	about proceeding,

	The people who argue the change is bad without thinking about it and
	really examining it (the nochangeniks),

	The people who argue the change is good without thinking about it
	or examining the points of view of the pundits (the changeniks).

One or more of the above groups inevitably will inject FUD into the
discussion with the intention of either promoting or thwarting the agenda.

It does have the unfortunate effect on the developmental efforts that
you have pointed out.  Perhaps some more removed, philosophical observations
can be made which may ameliorate some of the fears that the developers might
have (though, to date, I don't see a whole lot of trepidation on the
part of the developers when it comes to implementation!).

The best I, as a person, can do is to make the disclaimer that I don't
want to be bit by the downsides of the changes.  I think that's a
perfectly reasonable statement, and I don't think it's unreasonable to
have a means of maintaining what has been thus far a stable environment.

And, if I'm not mistaken, that's a fairly sane way to mitigate the
high-pitched shrieks of despair into something that is more easily parsed
by a humanoid ear.

So I will state that I'm not trying to arbitrarily throw wrenches in the
works, as much of a comfortable dinosaur as I might be.  I'm doing my
best to keep an open mind on things and realise that just because it
doesn't benefit me doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but by the same
token, you can't arbitrarily walk in and set fire to my sofa, either :).

This thread has frayed horribly (note the subject change), so I'll
leave it at that.  Pip, pip, Carry on, stiff upper lip and all that!

				--*greywolf;
--
"Windows/NT - From the people who brought you EDLIN".