On Sep 7, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Alan Chapell wrote: > Hi Jeff - > > If you are going to attempt a rebuttal, you may want to try using facts rather than simply stating your position more vociferously using the same talking points you've been spewing since day one on this list... > > I understand that you find Adobe's actions unfortunate. But the question you were asked to address is – is Adobe's action not a significant (if not radical) change to the way the Internet operates? I'm sure someone will correct me, but I can't recall an instance where Adobe has taken a similar action. So perhaps the better term is "unprecedented"? I request that you both keep your facts straight. Apache != Adobe, even though it is easy to confuse the two because the words begin and end the same. I have repeatedly informed this WG of the Apache decision. I did not, in fact, discuss it within Adobe before the Apache PMC had voted on the patch, applied it to the 2.4.x branch, and then voted on the 2.4.3 release. That decision process is publicly archived on the Apache mailing lists. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-cvs/201208.mbox/%3C20120814205332.2548223889E1%40eris.apache.org%3E http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201208.mbox/%3C88C9F94E-4B5A-4B55-855A-ED7B2FE177C7%40jaguNET.com%3E If you have more questions about Apache's decision, I suggest you ask the Apache folks who are not employed by Adobe. ....Roy
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 21:41:49 UTC