the issue here is not any war on, with, against, or about
you-know-who and you-know-what. the main issues are (as
I see them):
1. an abuse of process: 30 days to approve a 6000-page
document is absurd.
2. knowledge of proprietary information is (apparently)
required to implement some parts of the proposal.
3. why is another standard needed, and needed so soon?
what are the issues with the existing standard that
the proposal addresses?
finally, please, please, keep in mind that objecting to
the attempt to fast-track does NOT mean you either object
to the proposal or support the existing standard;
or that you like / dislike the available software; etc.
objecting to the attempt to fast-track means just that:
in this case, there are coherent reasons for thinking
fast-tracking is not appropriate.
Experienced (>25 yrs) kernel/software Eng: | Brian Foster Montpellier,
• Unix, embedded, &tc; • Linux; • doc; | blf at utvinternet.ie FRANCE
• IDL, automated testing, process, &tc. | Stop E$$o (ExxonMobile)!
Résumé (CV) http://www.blf.utvinternet.ie | http://www.stopesso.com
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!