Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!indri!nic.MR.NET!shamash!sialis!rjg
From: rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Elm 2.2 miscellany
Message-ID: <1392@sialis.mn.org>
Date: 22 Apr 89 17:50:03 GMT
References: <5191@nis.mn.org> <467@mjbtn.MFEE.TN.US> <14550@sequent.UUCP> <446@wubios.wustl.edu> <100281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <5092@pbhyf.PacBell.COM>
Reply-To: rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin)
Organization: Dr. Ho Laboratory and Day Care Center
Lines: 50

In article <5092@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> rob@PacBell.COM (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>In article <100281@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> plocher@sun.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
>+Making changes for the sake of change is stupid.
>
>We didn't make changes just for the sake of change. We made changes just
>to bother you.

Rob, there are apparently a number of people out there who have
opinions one way or another regarding certain changes made in Elm 2.2.
We all know by now that I certainly do, and we've discussed these
differences in opinions via mail as well, which I think is probably
the best way to discuss differences.

However, we've exceeded the point for joke remarks.  If your reply was
a joke (which it appears to be), that's fine, but also respond to it
in a manner that will satisfy the poster.  I'm sure John didn't feel
this to be an adequate response.  Whether his presentation was as well
presented as it should have been doesn't diminish the need for
attention to it.

Unfortunately, I've not seen much to respond to the questions and
concerns of those who are feeling affected by these changes.  I've
seen rationalizations and intentions, all well and good, but I'm also
feeling an increasing atmosphere of "We did it this way, we all felt
it was better, so that's the way we're going to do it".  These people
have legitimate concerns and opinions, and they deserve an
appropriate and thought out response, with or without a resolution.

For the responses from yourself and others that _have_ been thought
out and clear, thanks!  But we need to begin to pay more attention to
addressing them, now that more and more people are installing Elm 2.2
over their previous versions and beginning to notice these changes and
how it affects them.  "You'll get used to it" is not an adequate
response for all items.

Perhaps the changes _are_ better.  Maybe everyone will get used to
them.  Certainly in time they will, but the concerns are rising, and
there is discussion of yet further changes.  Even minor ones are
drawing a noticeable amount of response.

Perhaps a little more community involvement in pending updates would
be appropriate from a discussion level.  I know I have always had to
rely on the opinions of my constituents before I implement a software
package or an alteration to one.  Doing so after the fact only creates
problems.

-- 
________Robert J. Granvin________   INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org
____National Computer Systems____   CONFUSED: rjg%sialis.mn.org@shamash.cdc.com
__National Information Services__       UUCP: ...uunet!rosevax!sialis!rjg