Quality over quantity is a fine goal, but I don't think we can honestly claim coin did a particularly good job on that. As has been said, over 90 proposals were submitted. The majority of them were horrid.
On Sep 16, 10:22 pm, markmahieu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 16, 4:32 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why are you > > surprised the community isn't putting in as many proposals as you > > wanted? Putting in that much effort writing excruciatingly boring JLS > > spec with virtually no guarantee is of course not going to find many > > takers. > > I interpreted this quite differently - although the majority of us > aren't able to write a JLS quality proposal, Joe wanted us to at least > try to the best of our available time and ability, and in the process > think more deeply, critically even, about our own respective > proposals. > > Personally I found that to be the most interesting part by far, even > though I can't claim to have done an amazing job of it. Challenging? > Certainly. Even disappointing sometimes when you realise that a > favourite idea just doesn't cut it. But excruciatingly boring? > Really? > > Fundamentally, it was (and is) all about trying to tip the balance of > ideas and analysis in favour of quality rather than quantity, for > once. That's always going to be hard. > > Cheers, > > Mark --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
