On 8/10/11 9:46 AM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Russel Winder (rus...@russel.org.uk)'s article
--=-/EZ9N8/9sZ9dsJoreonX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 11:19 +0000, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
[ . . . ]
I would just like to remind everyone that there are now only two days=20
left until voting ends. While I am certainly pleased that everyone has=
=20
so far voted "yes", I am a bit worried that so few people have voted in=
=20
the first place.
=20
This module may become a permanent part of D's standard library. If you=
=20
care about this, either way, please cast your vote now.
I suspect there are many people who have not followed the debate nor
reviewed the code who are therefore taking the view that to cast a vote
would be somewhat out of order. I think that as long as those people
who have been active in the evaluation have cast a vote, and Walter et
al. are happy that due process has been followed, then even with what
appears to be a low turn out, given that it is yes, nem con, becoming
part of the standard library is a sensible natural consequence.
Yeah. IMHO, the voting process is mostly a formality, though a necessary one.
If
a module makes it to a vote, it's probably going to be overwhelmingly accepted,
but that's because the process serves as an effective deterrent to crappy code
making it to a vote, not because the vote isn't serving any useful purpose.
It's
kind of like Ph.D. thesis defenses in the U.S. Almost noone ever fails, but
that's because noone ever defends their thesis until they're almost sure it
would
pass, not because the defense process is a useless rubber stamp.
That makes horror stories of failed defenses all the more horrifying :o).
Apologies for not voting. I'm not able to put time into a review now,
but I'm confident that the process has shaken any major issues I might
have had with the module. We've come a long way in terms of community
and process.
Andrei
