On 11 November 2010 18:04, Thomas Schilling <nomin...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The problem we had with text is that we had Ian and Ross and perhaps a > few more on one side and Bryan and many others on the other side. It > only got resolved because Bryan backed down, but I have a feeling that > if we had actually voted it would have gone the other way around. Right. I think what would happen (if we're not careful) is that there would be a lot of people who think "I want the package to go in" and so vote for whatever status-quo gets the package in. The people objecting in this case did not want to block the package, they wanted the package to go in with some changes. To vote effectively in a case like this it'd have to be really clear to all the voters that the package was going in in either case and it was a question of a detailed API choice (reflecting some underlying principles, not just name bikeshedding). That's partly why I think an idea with some merit is only voting on general principles not specific package details. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
