On 22 August 2014 14:42, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote:
Part of the difficulty of that statement is that the
very /definition/
of "good enough" will necessarily vary from individual to individual,
with a non-zero segment of editors defining it as "absolutely perfect
and matching /my/ requirements exactly" (and another, just as large
segment, calling for "any improvement to X is a gain").
Just recently I had someone seriously claim "bah, if Flow doesn't
include [obscure feature I like] it won't be fit for purpose" in all
seriousness.
Regardless of one's opinions on the "power
dynamics" of the situation,
or on how to best serve the short- and long-term needs of the community,
it seems to me evident that you cannot allow any one segment of the
community what amounts to veto power to any attempts at improvement.
I think it's indisputably clear that, no matter the level of and
efforts toward consultation, people will loudly claim it wasn't
enough.
- d.