Std.path: Final Vote

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Russel Winder (russel at 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.