On 27.09.2017 01:00, Duncan Murdoch wrote:
I think R Core would not be interested in a vote, because you'd be voting to give them work to do, and that's really rude.
Voting about other people's work is indeed a problem. This is were I hope money from the R Consortium could help, assuming they are serious about contributing to the community (and serious about protecting their investments into interfacing R).
What would have a better chance of success would be for someone to write a short article describing the proposal in detail, and listing all changes to CRAN and Bioconductor packages that would be necessary to implement it. That's a lot of work! Do you have time to do it?
Specifying all the consequences of such a change in detail is a similar amount of work than actually doing it. Are you suggesting that I do the work alone? And predicting from past experience the chances that R-core would accept my suggestion: guess what I would do?
Such improvements of the language should be suggested by everyone who sees need, filtered through a voting process open to every user (flagged for package authors to get an early picture of their votes), the promising changes planned in detail by R Core (given a budget for implementation from the R-consortium), confirmed by a voting process of all package authors and then put on a sufficient long-term roadmap. So if R Consortium and R Core commit to such a process and you ask me if I am willing to compile a first list of suggestions for change: I don't have time but I would collect and consolidate input from this list. Any volunteers for organizing a voting system assuming the above commitments?
Best Jens ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
