[sldev] [POLICY] Development by consensus (Re: Question regarding upcoming maintenance on 11/27-11/28)

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 22-Nov-2007, at 23:45, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Matthew's statement quoted above doesn't give us any credit for  
> doing anything other than to "aspire" toward openness when we are  
> far, far past that.

Fair enough. On rereading I agree, his comment was also unfair, but I  
still think your response was more in the nature of a rhetorical  
question.

> There were some interesting considerations in the feedback, but  
> nothing that convinced them that the costs outweighed the benefits.

I think that what bothers people is that some of the benefits that  
Linden Labs presented don't seem to even be served by the design. If  
there are other benefits that you haven't discussed that outweigh the  
increased chance of fraud in the design you presented, or if the  
design has been changed, well, that's all very well, but we don't  
know about that.

> Moreover, the stated requirements were not treated as requirements  
> by the reviewers.

I did present an alternative mechanism that would preserve the  
required single-sign-on capability without making a web page a  
required intermediary.