std.parallelism: VOTE IN THIS THREAD

[Russel Winder]

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.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at russel.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20110424/1b8aaa45/attachment.pgp>