Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Well, if nobody can identify what exactly the problem is, it should
> definitely be removed from the Open Items list ... maybe we need to lay
> down some 'rules' for the TODO list? Some sort of criteria other hten
> "someone suggested it" to work with? For instance, change the TODO to a
> pseudo-FAQ format ... where an item added to it has to have some sort of
> 'associated' description?
>
> For instance, how is SIMILAR TO *not* Posix compliant? What *is* a Posix
> compliant version? Where is such compliance defined? Is there a
> reference?
>
> Also, since when has 'lack of compliance' been basis to remove something
> ... "its not fully compliant, so even partial functionality isn't
> allowed"?
>
> Basically, there should be *some* basis for an item to be on the TODO list
> ... some sort "this is how it should be" ...
>
> How many items on the TODO list are ones that nobody even knows what they
> are about anymore? :)
I think you are confusing the open items list with the TODO list. TODO
usually has some basis, while open items is just that, things we need to
decide on. Peter brought it up and wanted it on the list so I put it
on. I can be taken off just as easily. I put Peter's name on the item,
and a question mark. The open items list is just so we don't forget
things.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073