Re: About proposal Networking::Net_IMInfo

Hi,

it seems to me that there were different people heading in the same direction but with different votes. E.g. I for myself put a +1 with a condition to make the package more flexible (thinking of driver-based etc.) and widen it's functionality. Others like Martin and Stephan S. thought mostly / exactly the same way, but gave a -1 for this with a "I will change this to +1 if ..."-condition. Shouldn't this have been a +1 conditional?

As this are huge changes in the architecture of the package, as well as the package name, I thought it would be better to vote -1, instead of a conditional vote. If 5 people would have voted +1, then my conditional vote would transform to a zero, and I wanted to express my opinion with more 'force'. If the Andrew changes these issues and resubmits the proposal then I'll vote +1. I think a package like this is needed in PEAR, as a lot of novice users need the functionality and are unable to develop it themselves. But the package *must* be flexible, thus I insist on a driver based architecture. Stephan