Re: Slowing down Pepr? at least 1 month between proposal/votes

Hi, Alan Knowles wrote:

I just had a look at the proposal for Image_Graphpite, while an interesting and good package, it has gone * First Draft: 2004-08-30 * Proposal: 2004-08-30 * Call for Votes: 2004-09-07 That's an 8 day review?

Yes, that's 8 day review. And the current voting process shows that it was enough. Please bear in mind that an already mature project is being proposed for inclusion.

- The first comment asked if it could be added / work with Image_Graph. This would be an ideal solution, but is not going to be feasible to evalutate in 8 days. It would be far better if the authors of Image_Graph had managed to make a comment. - did they wish to merge their work into Image_Graphpite, and call the merged one Image_Graph.. (or visa-versa)

Alan, the code size of Image_Graphpite is 5 times larger than the code of Image_Graph. That kinda says everything about the "add" idea. And I do not understand why this merging discussion can not happen *after* Image_Graphpite is accepted into PEAR. Is this because of the turf that was occupied by Image_Graph?.. Hmm...

Unfortunatly we know from experience that 1 month is often not enough time for comments. If someone is willing to commit years of future maintanance to a package, then waiting an extra month before going to votes is perhaps a small inconvenience worth going through.

If you think that the proposal is premature, vote -1 or vote conditionally. It is not too democratic to fix the voting rules each time you don't like the outcome.