On Tuesday 06 January 2009 16:27, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Florent Daigniere > <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: > > Yay, more alchemy! > > I agree (assuming you intended that sarcastically ;-) This is > straying into total alchemy territory. We need a proper rationale for > whatever we set the limit to before we start messing with it based on > guesswork.
Is that possible? > > > What's the reason why we are considering to raise the limit again? It's > > not the top-priority on the uservoice thingy anymore. Anyway, I remain > > convinced that ~50 votes is irrelevant (especially when we consider that > > a single user can give 3 voices to the same task!) and that we shouldn't > > set priorities depending on what some "vocal" users are saying. > > Not exclusively, but it should be a consideration. > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke > CEO, Uprizer Labs > Email: ian at uprizer.com > Ph: +1 512 422 3588 > Fax: +1 512 276 6674 > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090106/6f2596ea/attachment.pgp>
