Voting mechnism is needed for xdg discussion.

[Mario Behling]

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Toma<tomhaste at gmail.com> wrote:
> My issue with voting systems is the lack of transparency. Someone
> could submit something for a vote and we never see it as most of us
> dont have XDG website as our browser homepage.

There are numerous ways. Feed syndication is used by many people these
days. If we could implement a gateway between the mailing list and a
public forum, it would be a good idea and make things more
transparent.

> The only way to get
> everyones attention is via email. And if you suggest making a vote
> then submitting that vote to an emailing list, youre essentially
> accomplishing nothing.

- 1

Not every developer effected by discussions and decisions made here is
on this list. People could follow on different channels (mailing list,
forum, feeds) can improve the process.

> Maybe we need some sort of etiquette for the
> mailing list when it comes to making group decisions on points?

+1

- Mario


> Its
> not hard or time consuming to spin off an email saying "+1 from me" to
> certain points in a spec discussion on the mailing list. It shows a
> quick agreement to a point rather than silence. Remember, we cant read
> you nodding at your screen while reading spec submissions :)
>
> -Toma
>
>
> 2009/6/6 Havoc Pennington <havoc.pennington at gmail.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Decisions aren't really made on the list. The real voting mechanism is
>> code. All the interoperability specs or shared libraries that have
>> some adoption exist because there was interest in implementing more
>> than one implementation. Sometimes one person went around implementing
>> more than once in various desktops, sometimes two or three people
>> decided to each do an implementation. But in the end you only need two
>> or three people to agree with you enough to do some coding. There's
>> not a need to convince an entire mailing list. The mailing list is
>> just a place for discussion.
>
> +1 from me! :D
>
>>
>> The people who agree with you do have to include maintainers of any
>> relevant code modules, of course, but usually that's just a couple of
>> people.
>>
>> Havoc