Hi, I’m not sure if the problem is within the voting system. At least for me, the problem is mostly that I simply can’t assess the consequences of a change. Often, I am easily convinced that the change would be for the better, but I can’t precisely prognose how much impact it would have on me with my work with Haskell, let alone on others. Even more so, I have a hard time to assess the cost of a change: Will it cause major annoyance for many people? Will it just be something that a few people will have to take care of once and it’s done? Will it be smooth or is there a high risk of unexpected knock-on effects? In the end, I tend to be skeptical of most changes, but convincable by a carefully laid out transition plan, hoping that he who created the plan thought it trough. Ideally, the benefits and costs of a change could be quantified objectively, and we would not have to vote in the first place. But that’s of course not possible. (This mail does not offer solutions, or even ask for any, sorry. It was just a slight sigh, maybe with the hope to get people to too excited about change the either way, because it seems we cannot avoid suboptimal choices anyways.) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ Jabber: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F Debian Developer: nomeata@debian.org