Summary and call for discussion on text proposal

[John Smith]

On 07/11/2010 20:05, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Gregory Collins<greg at gregorycollins.net>  wrote:
>> By the way,
>>
>> Myself and several other people have been following this discussion
>> with increasing levels of annoyance and frustration. My understanding
>> was that the HP process was intended to help with the overall design
>> of libraries and to head off serious problems before too much time is
>> wasted on discussion, NOT to devolve into extended megathreads over
>> which colour to paint the bike shed.
>
> +1. I think this process is only scaring people from writing quality
> libraries, lest they be subjected to this endless bikeshedding. Bryan
> has addressed all of the substantive issues that I'm aware of that
> have ever been brought up about text. Let's just accept that the
> library is acceptable- and quite extraordinary- as is.

Another point: Is anyone responsible for bringing more libraries and tools into HP? The current setup sometimes looks 
like a lynch-mob of naysayers ganging up on any suggestion as audacious as adding a new package. A much more proactive 
attitude is needed if HP is going to grow.