On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote: > This design was raised privately, wherein I expressed a number of serious > misgivings about the appropriateness, suggested alternatives and raised > objections. To see this same proposal - without any attempt to resolve > these concerns or even a presentation or acknowledgement of how many there > - are is profoundly frustrating and suggests that all efforts previously to > avoid this and improve it were considerable time well wasted. The only > conclusion readily apparent, outside of bad faith, would be that it wasn't > realized how serious these concerns were, and making sure it is abundantly > apparent that this is an ill-fit through unambiguous and unhedged language > hopefully expresses this. You can see the tone as strong, whereas my goal > is no misrepresentation to ambiguity in my position. > [snip] Ryan, I'd like to see if we can bring down the heat level a bit. Certainly, it wasn't anyone's intention to somehow surprise you by bringing something to group that you objected to. Indeed, I circulated an earlier version of this to Justin Uberti and it was my understanding that he had talked to you and that you were (grudgingly) OK with it. I'm sorry to hear that you aren't in fact OK with it, and frankly, I'm rather frustrated by that as well, since I thought that we had reached something that everyone could live with. Obviously that's not true, and there was a miscommunication somewhere. I'll reply to your substantive objections about the proposal in a separate message. Given the time of day (and of year), that will probably take a day or few, but I wanted to write now to perhaps see if we could clear up any concerns that your objections were deliberately ignored. They weren't. -Ekr
Received on Wednesday, 24 December 2014 00:10:15 UTC