On 10/14/05, Stéphane Rollandin <lecteur at zogotounga.net> wrote:
> but... who are you to decide that what is said has been said
> lightheartedly ?  :)
>
Thanks for taking that bit of bait :).

I think what I'm aiming at is a reversal of the burden of proof. Often
I hear a lot of shouting "we can't do <simpler procedure> because <a
user group> will <something negative>".

I think I just want to say - well... prove it. Bring up some evidence,
starting with proof of existence of <a user group>... Otherwise, I
think, we don't have any right to load other people's shoulders with
work.

It used to be often that <a user group> was Squeakland, but as far as
I can tell they're doing quite well catering for themselves at the
moment. I'm hard pressed to see any user group being negatively
impacted by 3.9{alpha,beta,gamma} not having an update stream at all,
except for my imagined group of low-bandwidth users, but as no-one
spoke up I cannot prove (not even with unreasonable amounts of doubt)
the existence for the group so I concede that there's zero need for an
update stream at this point.

Let's kill the bugger and see where it takes us if it is giving so much trouble.