| ▲ | crazygringo 7 hours ago | |||||||||||||
No, the idea is that "political decision" is used in opposition to a decision based on rational tradeoffs. If there isn't enough usage of a feature to justify prioritizing engineering hours to it instead of other features, so it's removed, that's just a regular business-as-usual decision. Nothing "political" about it. It's straightforward cost-benefit. However, if the decision is based on factors beyond simple cost-benefit -- maintaining or removing a feature because it makes some influential group happy, because it's part of a larger strategic plan to help or harm something else, then we call that a political decision. That's how the term "political decision" in this kind of context is used, what it means. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | troupo 7 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||
> If there isn't enough usage of a feature to justify prioritizing engineering hours to it instead of other features, so it's removed, that's just a regular business-as-usual decision. Nothing "political" about it. It's straightforward cost-benefit. Then why is Google actively shoving multiple hardware APIs into the browser (against the objection of other vendors) if their usage is 10x less than that of XSLT? They have no trouble finding the resource to develop and maintain those | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||