Re: Package proposal misuse?

On August 11, 2003 08:07 pm, Davey wrote: > It very frustrating... some haven't been voted on because they're not > done (merely ideas) but other, like PDS (or whatever it ends up being > called, assuming it ever gets submitted) are *great* ideas that ltos of > people who don't follow PEAR like, but because the people in pear-dev > didn't vote (missed the message, didn't get it at all, don't like it, > don't want to vote) its going no where. PEAR is not the only repository of PHP code/scripts, there are plenty of others. Your *great* code/ideas need not be lost if it is not accepted into PEAR for whatever reason. > I think that if we're going to have this "policy" in place, we need to > make it so that *all* (active?) PEAR-DEVs *must* vote on every package, > even if its +0 - just to show acknowledgement. (As mentioned by stefan > whilst I was writing this ;) Forcing people to do this will only lead to invalid votes. Many would vote just for the sake of voting (some do so even now). Reviewing a package takes time, most people have day time job, school and other more important preoccupations, you need to be patient. The onus is not on the PEAR community to accept your work, but rather on you as the developer, to convince others that your code has merit. > > >>developer mailinglist with "more votes please!" Instead improve the > >>package, make changes and explain what you changed and maybe retry > > We need feedback in this case... I assume its ok to post something with > the subject "My_Package didn't get enough votes, please give me feedback"? Perhaps, if a package/idea does not attract sufficient audience right away, it means that there is little interest in it's addition? I would imagine that a number of people would not feel confortable shooting down someone's work in a public forum. > What I think we need to add with this on-line voting system is a way for > the proposer (is that a word?) to take the feedback given when voting > and add it to a public list of accepted feedback they're gonna act upon, > and check it off as they do it, and it would automatically mail the > person who gave the feedback telling them the author has done something > about it... it also gives everyone a clearer view of whats in store. Online voting system is a good idea, given the traffic of this list it's fairly easy to miss a proposal as it comes across a pipe. I also think it would be a good to limit the proposal acceptance period. If a proposal cannot generate a sufficient interest within a week (or another time unit) it probably is not PEAR material. Ilia