On Thursday, August 21, 2014 02:18:29 Stephen Farrell wrote: > Personally, I think the probability that we suddenly discover > any significantly better term is negligible. Not because OS > is super-good, but rather because nothing is super-good. And > good-enough should be good-enough here. > > In fact, I'd say so its so negligible that attempting to find > such (yet again, maybe for the 8th time?) is counterproductive. > > But that doesn't stop folks genuinely trying seemingly, I guess > its too tempting a windmill at which to tilt;-) > > But I'd appeal to others to consider this before they chime in > here: is your suggestion really that much better that everyone > will immediately say "yeah, that's the one we wanted!"? If not, > them maybe there's not much point in suggesting it. > > S. I think -03 was an improvement over -02, but I think we're in danger of regressing. I was able to find time to give the diff of the rewritten draft someone posted a quick read and my overall impression was that it did not represent progress. That's an overly terse comment for the amount of effort that went into it, but that's all I have time for. I think -03 does a reasonably good job of describing OS and we should call it mostly done. Scott K