Re: About proposal Networking::Net_IMInfo

Stefan Neufeind wrote:

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?

Anyways, imho it might be a good idea for Andrew to speak up about the requested changes, if he intends to change the functionality of the package or not. Then maybe it might be a good idea to restart the voting-process as soon as that is cleared.

PS: Maybe it's just me who's feeling this way - but that voting is imho somehow running in a crazy way ...

I feel the same here, I feel a more positive approach is always a good thing. I voted unconditionally, but I agree that the package could be better. More importantly, Andrew should weigh in on the conversation as to whether he intends to make this modular and remove the hard-coded stuff, images and such. Silence from his side justifies all the -1 votes. And if I remember right, these points were brought up well before the vote, naming, modularism, hard coded stuff, etc, and that's something else to consider. At any rate the fact that there are these -1 votes and conditional +1 votes signals that something's not right here and that this package is not yet ready for PEAR. Having a deeper look at the code I'd rather have voted conditionally myself, but I'd still like to see this become a part of PEAR, considering Andrew is willing to work with the community and make the requested changes. Regards, Richard York -- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Spicy Peanut Project http://www.spicypeanut.net :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::