Re: More FUD from Spille

I have one question: where does this guy find the time? He isn't
writing articles during office hours, is he?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:13:31 -0500, Scott Stirling
<scottstirling@...> wrote:
> http://www.pyrasun.com/mike/mt/archives/2005/01/09/20.57.06/index.html
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Well, what do you think? I know this is more passive aggressive stuff from Mike,
> but he has some good points. Obviously, Groovy is revolutionary and powerful and
> it both frightens people, causes envy, and makes them hopeful.
> 
> James, are you willing to step down? I think Guillaume should be your
> replacement if so and if he's willing.
> 
> I will volunteer to write the JSR. I believe Jeremy Rayner would be great for
> writing it too. At this point, I just think it needs to be written so we can
> move on. But can it be written? Is Groovy something we'll predict in a spec? Or,
> like most of the J2EE JSRs, will it evolve along with the implementations? Since
> Codehaus is the only "vendor" working on an implementation, doesn't it put a
> hell of a heavy load on the same small set of people? Where are the active,
> positive contributions from commercial vendors and other individuals who
> approved this JSR?
> 
> Here's another thought: the JSR is a fucking distraction. It gives people like
> Mike and Hani a club to bludgeon us with because we're not meeting imagined
> deadlines that they have cut out for Groovy somehow. "Not enough progress on the
> JSR" is their weapon. What if we table the JSR for a while? Is it going to kill
> Groovy, forcing it to mature too soon? Why is a JSR currently the main criterion