On 12/5/06, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right, but what haven't you stated this when voting -1? That would have helped people realize that another approach is possible, especially when it's as simple as not deprecating ListView.
From my original -1 vote: I don't like to deprecate listview. It has enough good usecases to keep it and promote its use. And furthermore, I would like to know *which* repeaters move to core...
I think that is clear enough.
I don't see it like that. A vote was started, whose propositions led you to raise a veto. Now although a veto blocks the modification, it should be justified [1] to allow further discussion and alternative proposals, i.e. trigger the community dynamics.
Where in my replies do I imply that I don't want further discussion? I can't see it. I just didn't want this proposal to go through without it being clear what we're voting on.
Such alternative proposals can then lead to a new vote, which is what happened here.
No.... people were amending their own votes with new possibilities/requirements outside the scope of the original proposal. This led to different meanings of the original proposal. What does a +1 on deprecating and moving mean when others are voting +1 on just moving, or adding additional requirements? I am not against discussions, nor modifying a proposal. But I don't like changing the items we're voting on in a votes thread. Martijn -- <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote</a> for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket";>Wicket</a> at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in the World!</a>
