> "Peter" == Peter Tribble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> I don't really like either of those changes. A full vote as
Peter> proposed would likely generate a lot of noise (different sides
Peter> competing as to which could send more messages). And I like the
Peter> current idea of acceptan
On 2/7/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would be happy with either of these cases:
1) A simple sum of the +1 and -1 replies regardless of who they came from.
2) Abandon any voting requirement at all and make the whole thing automatic.
The downside with 2 is that we could end u
Darren J Moffat writes:
> I would be happy with either of these cases:
>
> 1) A simple sum of the +1 and -1 replies regardless of who they came from.
>
> 2) Abandon any voting requirement at all and make the whole thing automatic.
I'm not happy with either.
(1) assumes into existence some sort
Stephen Lau wrote:
So here's a suggestion for a revised project proposal policy that Ben
and I hashed out over email. Ben, please correct me if I miss anything...
Projects need to be affiliated with, or get the sponsorship of an
already existing community
and what if there is not appropriat
