Re: [PEPr] Call for votes on Math::Math_Polynomial

Re: [Maybe the proposals lack visibility. Do you have ideas on how we can improve the situation ?] I don't think its neccessarily that proposals lack visibility. I'm new at this whole PEAR thing, so it could just be my lack of experience and I guess I was just expecting faster/more verbose responses. To me, one of the highlights of open-source is generally quick development time for individual pieces of a project ( ie PEAR packages ): at work I can expect feedback regarding a component of whatever within a week, despite having to have everything go through layers and layers of people. I guess for a small PEAR package to sit for weeks or months without feedback seems... slow to me. I guess another thing that's thrown me a bit is that the whole process seems a bit bureaucratic. I can't find any reasoning behind some of the coding standards ( discussion on the list about using '||' vs. 'or' and 'if (...) {' as opposed to 'if (...) [\newline] {' seems a bit ridiculous to me... the code is readable and maintainable either way, let developers have some freedom... ) and it seems wierd that commenting and revising proposals during the voting phase is not possible ( How can we respond to and possibly fix things you're commenting on if we can't edit the proposal...? ) I guess the last bit is I was just under the impression that the voting process was more to say: "Yes, continue to develop this towards a release" rather than "Yes, we like what you have as a final package." I was lead to believe this by statements like this in the manual: "Registering does not mean that you are going to release a first version of your package. It just means that some basic information about the package will be added to the PEAR package database." As such, it seems strange to me that I'd get voted with 0s because of coding style issues ( which are trivial to fix, and could be fixed before a release if they really need to be ). But hey, whatever, vote for/against the package and whatever happens happens. - Keith Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

Quoting "Keith Palmer Jr." <postmaster@uglyslug.com>:

I'd be happy to withdraw it and propose again in draft if someone can tell me how... So far this whole PEAR process seems very unorganized and confusing to me, I only called for votes because it'd been over two weeks and no one had commented on it... I was hoping for some comments during those two weeks...

Maybe the proposals lack visibility. Do you have ideas on how we can improve the situation ?

In addition, now I'm confused even further by comments like these: "You'd better get working, so you can implement this new feature! While you're at it, can you add the ability to calculate the number of numerical roots for polynomial of degree 7+ it takes to screw in a light bulb?" Is that a joke? Sarcasm? Someone trying to be mean?

It was a joke :) Arnaud.