Re: Summary and call for discussion on text proposal

On 07/11/2010 20:05, Michael Snoyman wrote:

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Gregory Collins wrote:

...

By the way,

Myself and several other people have been following this discussion with increasing levels of annoyance and frustration. My understanding was that the HP process was intended to help with the overall design of libraries and to head off serious problems before too much time is wasted on discussion, NOT to devolve into extended megathreads over which colour to paint the bike shed.

+1. I think this process is only scaring people from writing quality libraries, lest they be subjected to this endless bikeshedding. Bryan has addressed all of the substantive issues that I'm aware of that have ever been brought up about text. Let's just accept that the library is acceptable- and quite extraordinary- as is.

Another point: Is anyone responsible for bringing more libraries and tools into HP? The current setup sometimes looks like a lynch-mob of naysayers ganging up on any suggestion as audacious as adding a new package. A much more proactive attitude is needed if HP is going to grow.