One of the good reasons for this format (although I have no idea if it is why it's why it was chosen) is that there are some good statistics behind pairwise comparison.
On 15 April 2012 05:25, Bob Dionne <dio...@dionne-associates.com> wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bob Dionne >> <dio...@dionne-associates.com> wrote: >>> I kind of agree, though I think voting is neat. I'd like to think most of >>> these features are influenced by experiences with users in addition to >>> internal refactoring concerns and so forth. >>> >>> It might help for everyone to see the list of features (here's a cleaned up >>> version I got from BobN) [1]. As Benoit suggests, we need to >>> sort/categorize them first before attaching priorities. >>> >>> One thing we might think of is the areas they might be grouped in, along >>> the line of teams as Jan suggested at the summit. >> >> We are actually all agree on the need to have focus points. I still >> strongly disagree with this idea of team. > > I'm not a big fan of teams either, but willing to go along if enough folks > think it can help make for more progress. > > >> But yes we should organize >> the things in different topics. >> >>> >>> I'm happy to maintain this list as we drill down into the specifics, >>> summarize email threads, and IRC chats. Some of these, .eg. moving metadata >>> out of the docs, could easily require a lot of detailed discussion as they >>> hit many areas of the code, so we should flesh out the details. >>> >> >> I was thinking we could start a wiki and organize things in a table or >> so . Thoughts? >> >> - benoît >
