On 22 August 2014 14:42, Marc A. Pelletier marc@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.