From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 13:09:48
David Abrahams wrote:
> Well, now Joel and Jeff Garland have both told me by private mail that
> there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a discussion about
> what's worth voting for, and I am basically convinced. I think certain
> aspects of the logo are more important than others and should be
> considered. But before I start blurting out any specifics, let's hear
> from the group. Is there any reason we shouldn't talk about how to
> choose? We do almost everything at boost by public consensus. Why
> not this time?
I strongly agree. Opinions aren't sacred, they can (and should) be
argued about. Let's trust in civilized and constructive discussion
which this list has proven to be good at in the past.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk