constraints call notes/proposals/sync

[William Reade]

On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 19:25 -0200, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, William Reade
> <william.reade at canonical.com> wrote:
> > ...then that problem would no longer apply, but I could no longer claim
> > to have eliminated the concept of constraints. It seems to me that
> > according to the use cases I imagined, the impact of this drawback is
> > not enough to materially affect my conclusions; do I appear to have
> > missed anything here?
> 
> I'm not sure about what the conclusions are, but there is extensive
> coverage in the thread that Roger initiated.

It seems that at least one of us is saying things that the other is not
effectively apprehending.

If you believe we are in so desperate a situation that it is reasonable
to drop or cripple valuable functionality that exists in python, please
explain why you believe this to be the case (or drop the "ec2-type"
proposal, which appears to be predicated on this belief; nobody has yet
come forward to disabuse me of my notion that parity is a fundamental
goal).

If you believe my criticisms of your "cpu" proposal are not relevant,
please explain your reasoning.

If you believe the "instance-type" proposal, that I presented and
subsequently modified in response to roger's feedback, is not the best
yet presented -- or is, but remains inadequate -- please expand on this;
I've seen an echo of one drawback I had previously pointed out, but
nothing addressing my subsequent justification of the proposal as the
one that most effectively addresses the needs of our users.

Cheers
William