On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 15:19 -0400, dsimcha wrote: [ . . . ] > I understand the points being made here, but I actually think votes from > people who know little about topic X are valuable when evaluating API > design for a topic X library. People who would only use a topic X > library occasionally are probably in the best position to judge whether > simple things are sufficiently simple. People who would use such a > library all the time are probably so well versed in the topic and would > use the advanced features so often that they're likely to overlook this > aspect.
I don't disagree, which is why I earlier suggested that categorizing people voting so as to know their role as a voter would be good, and for the review leader to have the only actual yes/no vote but based on input from the general populace. The point here, which I think we are all agreed on, is that there are people who have knowledge of the internals and therefore may have blind spots about the API; people who have tried the API; and people who have not tried the API but perhaps ought to and need to be convinced to try it. "One person, one vote" is great in some ways, but not really a good way of deciding the sort of thing we have here, at least not per se. The review leader taking a public poll is a good idea, but in the end they should make the decision based on the votes and comments as input. They should then report back to the general populace explaining the decision. Having used this approach elsewhere, I have found this quasi benign dictatorship, quasi democracy to be the best way of handling these processes. For all the reasons we are commenting on in this thread! -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
