An observation, inspired by but not limited to the
better-files discussion: we should be careful about “making the best the enemy of the good” thinking. Specifically, we’ve got a couple of proposed integrations that are being argued against because they (possibly) aren’t the ideal we would like. That’s a valid line of argument, but IMO is a lot more valid when it’s paired with, “and here’s a better alternative”. (Or even a concrete plan for somebody to build a better alternative.)
I can definitely sympathize with the desire not to put the imprimatur of “standard” on something when we can see the conceptual flaws. That said, the Platform is not going to be perfect, and we have to be somewhat pragmatic about what the definition of “good enough” is. If something could be significantly better, but that “better” doesn’t yet exist and the bird in hand is a considerable improvement over the existing APIs, is that “good enough”?
I’d strongly recommend we think about this explicitly. What should be the rough guidelines for “good enough”? If we have a proposal for adding a library, and we can see the outlines of the library we would prefer, but nobody’s volunteered to write it yet, what should we do? This is really a strategic decision, and a moderately important one. Is it better for the Platform to include the library (which we anticipate is likely to eventually be superceded by something more appropriate, but makes life better in the meantime), or leave it out (leaving the community pain point, and maybe inspiring somebody to actually write and contribute something better)?
I should note that I’m raising this as a discussion topic precisely because I don’t even know my own feelings here – I can argue both sides of this one. But it seems that we’ll have more productive discussions going forward if we have can come to at least a rough consensus on our philosophy here…