Re: About proposal Networking::Net_IMInfo

On 20 Apr 2004 at 21:19, Stephan Schmidt wrote: > > 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. Agreed. Then my vote needs to be changed to a conditional -1 also - honestly. Stefan