I vote against making any use of "formal" voting. :-) Seriously, I think when a controversy remains, it is worth taking the trouble to continue discussing it until a near-consensus arises. This can happen because almost everyone gets convinced, or because some people voluntarily defer to others who they respect or who are doing more of the work, or because they agree to put something off for now because it's not worth continuing to discuss it right now. This informally allows the community to have more influential members, without requiring a formalized "insider group" that alienates some people. Anyone who "loses an argument" is always allowed to keep arguing if it's important enough to them or if things change. Whereas a vote would artificially cut off discussion. (And besides, the decision about when to hold the vote, and what exactly to vote on, would have to be made somehow....)
That said, I agree with others who are eager for clarification from Alex (and/or Richard) about how much and what kind of influence he hopes or expects to continue having. (And personally, I hope it's as much as possible.) - Bruce On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Richard Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > A decision making process would be nice. We could easily hold such > votes in a invitation only group managed by all the committers.... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" 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/pyglet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
