Re: [PEPr] Proposal finished Math::Math_Polynomial

I have been travelling all over Peru (for talks and work, not for tourism, tho' I've done some of that too :-), and I am just catching up w/ email. I would've like to check this proposal in more detail, but I think that the author rushed a bit to call for votes. I would definitely like something along these lines in PEAR (yes, I am predictable), in particular now that my "4 to 7 talks a week"-months have passed and I have but just 3 more talks in the next 3 weeks (woot!). Cheers. On 11/26/05, Clay Loveless <clay@killersoft.com> wrote: > Justin Patrin (papercrane@gmail.com) wrote: > > > What does everyone think of changing Pepr to discount 0 votes when > > deciding whether to extend the voting period? > > I feel it's a bad idea to change the voting system when we don't like the > outcome. > > The problem isn't that this proposal got too many 0 votes, or no -1 votes > ... It's that it didn't get enough +1 votes. So, changing the system to > weight zero votes differently wouldn't have made any difference here. > > As for the length of the voting period, it appears that the comments need to > be taken into consideration, and the package should be re-proposed at a > later date when the developer feels like he'll have a greater chance of > getting more +1 votes. > > No need to turn this package into a special case. > > -Clay > > -- > Killersoft.com > > > > -- Jesus M. Castagnetto <jmcastagnetto@php.net> PEAR stuff: http://pear.php.net/user/jmcastagnetto Web site: http://www.castagnetto.org/