On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM, G. Matthew Rice <m...@starnix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Bryan J Smith <b.j.sm...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> I think there should be a more formal voting, like on some issue > trackers. > > Bryan, take it easy ;) > Matt, you _mis-quoted_ me and Fernando, flipping us ... Fernando: I think there should be a more formal voting, like on some issue trackers. Bryan(bjs): I think any "meta-development" of social aspects distracts from "actual development." We're all peers. We can respect each other's input. Fernando: Else the objectives can be dominated by the opinion of whoever writes them on the wiki. ;-) Bryan(bjs): God forbid ... something being dominated by those who -- gasp -- volunteer and work on them! God that's like ... well ... too "open source" like! As always, as the sign on the animal shelter says ... "If you don't like what you see ... volunteer!" Seriously, there's nothing stopping more people from joining in and modifying the objectives. Also remember, those who are actively development are actually very considerate of input. Matt Rice is a perfect example of this. He didn't become the head of exam development by accident. -- bjs -- Bryan J Smith - Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith at ieee.org - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
