| ID | Category | Title | Creator | Status | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 195 | legacy | Technical implementation of a suggestion doesn't matter in polls UNLESS if it's explicitely stated otherwise | CuBe0wL | FAILED | 3:5(1 abstained, 12 didn't vote) |
-
| User | Decision | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| divVerent | NO | I disagree here - if a vote is about a technical implementation, this is also part of what is being voted on. We should rather avoid putting technical details in the vote unless we have to. We can still put technical detail ideas in the !vyes text. |
| MrBougo | NO | Agree with div. The polls steer development, they are not just a source of inspirational ideas voted on quality. Therefore, implementation details matter. |
| Archer | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| bitbomb | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| CuBe0wL | YES | This is to prevent a good idea voted no or vetoed only because of technical reasons, not because the idea itself is bad. |
| detrate | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| FruitieX | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| GATTS | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| IDWMaster | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| JH0nny | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| Mario | NO | |
| matthiaskrgr | ABSTAIN | |
| Mirio | NO | |
| Morphed | YES | |
| s1lence | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| Samual | YES | It can be difficult to define some times-- when in doubt, ask the author. If they insist on a particular implementation, then in that case it can be vetoed. |
| sev | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| Soelen | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| Sydes | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| theShadow | NONE | (auto-abstain due to inactivity) |
| zykure | NO | +1 div0 |