Pierre van Rooden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [_] +0 (ABSTAIN ) > > While I like the idea, my experience in last votes is that there is too > much discussion of implementation details, and then, when the vote is > approved, the implementation is changed. > I think an implementation should have been discussed BEFORE the vote is > called, not during. > So I suggest you first offer the code for discussion, and then offer it > as a hack.
So, then I don't know it any more. There seems to arise a complete new rule here. I think any improvement of implementation should be acceptable always, in a hack or in other code as well. Discussions more often then not have no end, or clear conclusion, and don't really feel like losing that much time on something so minor as this. I'd rather suffer a few -1's then, which at least is clear. Sensible implementation suggestions are always welcome, but as long as they are not changing the complete idea of the hack, and I'm not going to ignore them, just because that would change my original proposal. I would nearly be inclined to offer each hack without code, but just with an outline. It would be more like a project then, which has carte blanche about implementation. So I see a big discrepancy. A project may do everything, and a hack (basicly a small one-man project), may not even add a semicolon, becasue that was not proposed. It makes no sense. I could also request a project for this, but that would be rather idiotic. > If you desire to continue the call as is, that is fine, but if a > discussion arises that would lead to implementation changes, you will > need to make a new vote. Let's extend every hack-proposal to 6 days, in which the first three are for discussion. Remarkless votes should then be in the last three or so. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen | Mediapark C101 Hilversum | +31 (0)35 6772979 | I hate computers nl_NL eo_XX en_US | mihxil' | [] () |
