On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:44 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > [...] > A coherent set of choices governed by a particular patterning may be > called "design". Letting choices be made individually by a democratic > process will favor varying concepts of simplicity on a detail level > while breaking the ability for creating a design according to a > pervasive patterning of the problem space. > > What I am getting at is that if we want to have the basic functionality > usable for beginners and musicians who don't know programming, it won't > do to let beginners and musicians who don't know programming make the > design choices, even though their input and feedback will be helpful for > making checking that the design actually meets its objectives. > [...]
It seems that you're tired by our our style of discussing which results in endless email threads :( I'm sorry, and i'll try to be more brief. I also think that we don't (and shouldn't) aim for "random" democracy - rather meritocracy and informed democracy. Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
