- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:15:51 -0400
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 19/07/2013 3:06 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 7/19/13 13:47, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>> I think this is the real issue at hand: You value legacy interop more
>> than a usable API.
>
> This. *This* is why I've told you that you're misunderstanding
> everything. Don't take offense, just go back and read more carefully.
> I never said anything that implied that legacy interop is more
> valuable than a usable API. It's a nice strawman for you to build up
> and tear down, but you are arguing with a fictional character who is
> not me when you do so.
>
> What I'm trying to point out is that these goals are not at odds with
> each other. Your statement above implies that you have taken it as
> given that we can't do both -- that there is a tradeoff here to be
> made. If you take that as a fundamental principle, then I can see how
> nothing I say makes any sense.
>
> But they're not mutually exclusive goals. Keep that in mind, and go
> back to re-read what I've written.
I think what Adam is trying to say is:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Adam, I would argue that we can improve the API incrementally
without throwing out all the lessons we've learned to date *but* this
means you have to be open to change. It's not okay to use this as a club
to silence calls for change, which frankly is what we've been hearing
for a while: "Sit tight while we finish 1.0... it's just around the
corner. Let's not discuss any changes until we get this out the door."
Gili
Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 19:16:36 UTC