<div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:12.8px">I doubt that the </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">one-sided argument in the proposal was blatant.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I should not have called it blatant, I'm sorry I rashly attributed intent.</div><div><br></div><div>The fact is that the current proposal is one-sided (regardless of intent), and it seems like many in the community (including the author) are unsure whether and when a proposal should be updated and what its actual role is in the review process.</div><div><br></div><div>I would like to take back any accusations I may have made and simply ask for clarification about the role and lifecycle of a proposal.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Dan Loewenherz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dan@lionheartsw.com" target="_blank">dan@lionheartsw.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It’s my understanding that the proposal itself is just a starting<br>
point. I do believe that the reviewers will review all commentary from<br>
the mailing list in addition to direct commentary. I doubt that the<br>
one-sided argument in the proposal was blatant; undoubtedly, the Swift<br>
team has been inundated with work and merging PR #59 fell by the<br>
wayside. I’m sure everyone’s arguments for and against will be<br>
considered and reviewed. The team has proven many times that they are<br>
thoughtful in their decision-making process.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Dan<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>