From: Iain Hanson (Iain.Hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-07 14:06:26
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 12:48 -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> christopher diggins <cdiggins_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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 think it would be a good thing. If people are influenced by it will be
no different than the review process.
I also have no problem with the running tally.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk