Mischaracterization

Writing under a new thread, as this does not directly pertain to T::M.

>> On April 16th I participated in a closed door discussion about the
>>  current direction of this bedrock module. An overwhelming majority
>>  was content with how things were handled, thus the work is slated
>>  for continuation.

> I resent that you continue to mis-characterize the discussion
> whenever it suits your rhetorical purposes.  I urge you to check that
> impulse and stay with the process as we discussed then, because the
> rhetoric gets in the way of constructive discussion.

David, this is not the first time you are raising an issue with me
"mischaracterizing" a process. I assure you - the above is how I
personally see the discussion. It may not agree with your PoV, it may
not even agree with the PoV of the majority of the participants. This
doesn't make *my personal* takeaway any less valid. Even if you factor
in the (non-trivial) possibility of a mental deviation - it *still*
doesn't invalidate my perception of events. Continuously discounting
them as "word play for rhetorical purposes" is not constructive.

> (1) "fundamental design issues"
> ...
> With regards to #1, at the time, you had no objections to the
> *design*.  Have you changed your mind?

I haven't changed my mind. I am not sure how we went from (paraphrasing 
nearly 10 minutes of the discussion about the "hub"):

> The design is overengineered with at least one if not two levels of
> indirection, optimizing for the wrong thing, instead of the 99.9999%
> use case for perl testing

To

> you had no objections to the *design*


If you feel that the above needs further discussion - take your time and 
think the answers through, none of this is burning. But *please* keep 
the discussion public.

Cheers