Andrew Brown wrote: > I, who still prefer Emily's design, think this is unfair to Maarten. I > know that sounds paradoxical. But we have two problems here which we need > to distinguish. One is the generally soggy, boggy and futile process of > decision making. the second problem is the quality of the actual home > page. Obviously the two are related. But halting Maarten's development so > that we can restart the discussion makes the first problem worse.
I certainly didn't mean to say that Maarten's development should be halted. No no no. I just meant to say that Emilly's design should be given a fair chance, and we should have a vote, here, on which is best. And again, not a committee, a vote. > If we go back to the beginning of the discussion, the question asked is > not "is this design perfect?". It is "Is this better than what we have?". > I think the latest version of Maarten's is a clear improvement on the > present page. So that's good enough. Well... http://www.math.umd.edu/~dcarrera/screenshot2.png But yes, we shouldn't aim for perfection. We should pick the best design that can be made available promptly. Though I do think that Emily's design /probably/ lies in that category, given that the design really is done. So what's left is dealing with SC. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
