| 1 |
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:12:13 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I had just given some reasons above, in the part that you haven't |
| 8 |
> > quoted. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> My main issue was with the "burden of proof" bit. This isn't a court |
| 12 |
> - we're free to do whatever seems to make the most sense, and not |
| 13 |
> worry about what kind of precedent it sets, since the next Council can |
| 14 |
> do whatever makes the most sense at that time. :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Is it fine to replace something that has worked for years without proof? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I'm all for something that covers the bases but is a bit cleaner in |
| 19 |
> design. Right now we have different sources for membership lists of |
| 20 |
> different kinds of groups, and that just seems like poor |
| 21 |
> normalization. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Why does it seem poor? How to have a single list for different kinds? |
| 24 |
Is normalization necessary? Does normalization make it cleaner at all? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The groups are of a different kind for a reason; normalization, YAGNI. |
Archives