Re: All's fair (in) love and the sdk list

I've agreed with what I've seen of what I've seen so far. ;-)

I've only had to speak three times through the process, and you know how
mouthy I get. I haven't seen a problem or anything missed or included that
shouldn't have been.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Barr" <[email protected]>
To: "M.J.T. Guy" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: All's fair (in) love and the sdk list


> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:10:14PM +0100, M.J.T. Guy wrote:
> > Graham Barr <[email protected]> wrote
> > > Maybe, but no module should be in or out on the basis of one or two
people.
> >
> > Remember that this list operates on the basis "silence implies
agreement".
>
> Agreement with what, in or out ? I think you would agree that that
approach
> will not work.
>
> > Otherwise it'd be flooded with "Me too" messages.
>
> At least then there would be a feeling for a level of concensus.
>
> > In the case of the Time:: stuff, you can count me as one of those
silently
> > agreeing with Nat's conservative approach.
>
> Oh I agree with that, which if you read my mail you would have noticed.
>
> Graham.
>