Steven Peck wrote:
I don’t normally do this but I feel moved to on this occasion.
Sometimes people try and justify their argument by saying they heard something isn’t done because some mysterious ‘others hate’ something. Please don’t do this. Just because you ‘heard’ something does not mean it’s true. It is also NOT a reason to justify your attempt to change something. There are other/better ways to marshal your arguments in favor of change and it automatically makes the rest of your justification weaker. Managing an Enterprise infrastructure is more complex and diverse then “it’s not done because someone hates something”. If it’s time to review or change something, then it should be done on it’s _/own merits/_ with a full understanding of the reasons the policy exists in the first place, _/not/_ with accusations or rumors claimed as fact.
Steven i dont know if this is in response to my attempt to summarize the arguments for and against the inclusion of third party libraries but my attempt at assembling the positions was a genuine attempt at building the merits for such a policy change. I didnt intend to propose others conjecture if thats how it came across. I wholeheartedly agree with your position here and i was in fact asking for a clear and rational response to our argument for the inclusion of these libraries in my email because i hadnt heard a compelling one that took into consideration our objections yet. -- Michael Favia michael@favias.org tel. 512.585.5650 http://michael.favias.org