Re: Kannel is suffering

>
>now, first of all. This "policy", if I'm free to proclaim it in that way, is not 
>invented by people maintaining Kannel.

Maybe not, but implemented by them according to their own preferences.

>I don't see any equation of 'lowest common denominator' and 'abstraction'. We 
>never put this equation to a rule here in the group.

Stipe, please look back and read your own rejections of suggestions. That should really
make you think about the validity of your sentence above.  

>There is only a generic 
>policy which implies to the fraze "don't make it the messy way".

Not true.

>Show us *why* the things you say (concerning factual issues, hence 
>coding implementations) is more "worth", then not to add it. If you convince us 
>by factual issues, we're always willing to "change" our position (like it tends 
>to happen in real-time politics).

If you never stand back and consider principle matters, but always delve into details,
you get nowhere.

>Ok, I agree in some limited sence to your last paragraph. But I refraze, it's up 
>to *you* to draw the benefits of your opinion, in such a way that you 
>generically convince by practical issues, not by generical politics frazes.

OK. Here is one practical issue, which deliberately has been turned down: 
implementation of complete official protocol standards.

- Jørgen Thomsen