Re: voting

On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 10:47, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > <mj@php.net> wrote : > > > On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 20:22, Jon Parise wrote: > >> How about a compromise: > >> > >> In order for a package to "pass", it must receive 'x' votes, > >> 'y' of > >> which must be from registered PEAR developers. > > > > Sounds like a good plan. > > I have noticed that some people are voting without actually reviewing the > code or testing it. They are instead voting for the idea to have such a > package or not, not the way it is implemented. This became evident with > Alexey Borzov's proposal for a template class and its cache feature. > > Perhaps, it should be made clearer whether it is required or not to have > looked at the source, make tests in order to be allowed to vote. Or there > might be two kinds of vote, one for the idea, one for the implementation. > > The goal of voting has to be defined. Is it to get a feeling about > community's willingness to have such a package in PEAR ? Or is it some sort > of package approval system based on the quality of the implementation ? IMHO, the most important aspect of the voting is to find the right package name. Who cares if the code is not "perfect" from day 1, that can be fixed, renaming the package is in practice not an option. - Stig