Re[2]: [PEAR-DEV] [Call for Votes] XML_Statistics

>> Katana has a very good and valid point. Don't contribute to >> the reason why professional won't use PEAR, instead help solve >> the problem. Gathering, analyzing and providing information is also a sort of contribution... SS> I'm already solving problems by contributing code and SS> documentation for my projects. But my time is limited and if SS> I promise to write docs after the package is approved, it SS> would be nice of you to believe in me. If I would add SS> documentation, how do you know I'll fix bugs or continue the SS> development? You can't be sure, but you should believe me SS> when I say that I will. This is what surprises me for that package proposal: it looks like (almost) for the first time, a good package is being refused because it does not have a correct documentation yet, even if the author promises he will write it. When I see a few package without any decent documentation, if documentation at all, I would understand if the author was frustrated with that. In my opinion, the documentation status required for package acceptation should be clearly described along with other information necessary when contributing to the PEAR project. I do not want to bitch at any one, I fully appreciate the time that's being spent on PEAR, which is in my opinion a repository with a great package quality. I didn't want to offense anyone, and please... stop answering to anyone that makes suggestions "if you don't like it do it yourself". Feedback IS a kind of contribution :-) Katana