For further consideration...
david.goodenough at linkchoose.co.uk
Mon Mar 30 08:47:45 PDT 2009
On Monday 30 March 2009, Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
> David Goodenough wrote:
> > On Monday 30 March 2009, Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
> >> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 25 March 2009, David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday 24 March 2009, Joe Darcy wrote:
> >>> It is a shame that no-one has seen fit to reply to this note.
> >> Especially since there has been no other recent traffic on the list to
> >> read or respond to!
> >> -Joe
> > I realise that there have been a lot of new proposals to consider, but
> > I am trying to understand what it is that needs to be improved in my
> > proposal in order to get it considered. Without feedback that is very
> > difficult. That is why I asked the questions about, and was dissapointed
> > not to get a reply.
> When the subject of your proposal is listed as being out of scope before
> the project starts,
> you should not be surprised when your proposal doesn't move forward.
As I pointed out before, what you actually said was:-
+Properties: While a detailed judgment would have to be made against a
+specific proposal, as a new kind of type properties would most likely be at
This is NOT the same as saying it is listed as out of scope, and the reason
given is that it is likely to be "at least medium sized". My proposal is
(at least to my eyes) smaller than many that are being accepted, and
so would therefore seem to fall INSIDE the scope, NOT outside it.
What I am asking for is what you said in your blog, that a detailed judgment
should be make against this specific proposal.
More information about the coin-dev