Re: Thoughts on PEPr voting frequency

On Mar 22, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Martin Jansen wrote:

On Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 03:4414PM -0500, Scott Mattocks wrote:

fully understand every package that gets proposed. Adding a vote to a package that I don't understand is worse than not voting at all.

I don't agree here. Even by cursory looking at the code and examining the basic API (!= extensive testing) one can easily spot major flaws _before_ they creep into PEAR. It's pretty much the same as with politics: You usually don't vote for a party because you understand each and every detail of their pension politics, but because you have informed yourself about the basic agenda and didn't find major flaws in it.

Yeah, but for the major flaws (like CS and such), not everyone needs to read every package. Usually the first comment or two will point out CS problems. After someone's done that, I don't see it as worth my time to read for such problems. And to echo what others have said, I often don't know the problem domain well enough to determine whether the package is worthwhile. FWIW, I think its good that not everyone votes on every package and I think the voting system is well setup in this regard- I'd rather have 5 people who've grokked the code and understand the problem well give it an approval, rather than a bunch of us give less informed votes. Oh, and Yea! I made the top 25 in something! -ryan -- http://theryanking.com/