The dev team makes the releases; without working and reliable software, no amount of community decisions result in any changes. The bottleneck isn't the community, but software development.
That said, what I said is still true: We (the community together) still intend to do so. It's coming.
Discussion or active comminication in the comminity can set the goal and direction that we are aiming together. Several dev team members can write the code better, buy thousands of comminity members sometimes provide insightful inputs to be coded.
What if the community don't accept changes you made? The code may not be adopted, or if the devs enforce the implementation community members will quit. Any of them is fatal to Steem; much more serious than some potential abuses by new code.
Theres no discussion or asking opinions to the comminity with HF17, while the new curvr code was being changed three of four times and ended up with reverting code. Is it really efficient?
Please stop only focusing on code and come to the community. They are valuable customer of your product, and the best marketer too. The reason why I am pushing the linerity is that while there are many dissonant opinons on other issues, it is the only thing the community members strongly agree for a change.
Theres no discussion or asking opinions to the comminity with HF17, while the new curvr code was being changed three of four times and ended up with reverting code. Is it really efficient?
I am happy to be able to say that I don't think we're going to have issues like that in the future.
A downvote was applied to partially counter earlier whale votes as an experiment to reduce whale domination of voting influence. Not intended to express an opinion on the content nor result in a net reduction of rewards or reputation (automated notice)
IMO, the "We" should be this community together, not only the devs.
The dev team makes the releases; without working and reliable software, no amount of community decisions result in any changes. The bottleneck isn't the community, but software development.
That said, what I said is still true: We (the community together) still intend to do so. It's coming.
Discussion or active comminication in the comminity can set the goal and direction that we are aiming together. Several dev team members can write the code better, buy thousands of comminity members sometimes provide insightful inputs to be coded.
What if the community don't accept changes you made? The code may not be adopted, or if the devs enforce the implementation community members will quit. Any of them is fatal to Steem; much more serious than some potential abuses by new code.
Theres no discussion or asking opinions to the comminity with HF17, while the new curvr code was being changed three of four times and ended up with reverting code. Is it really efficient?
Please stop only focusing on code and come to the community. They are valuable customer of your product, and the best marketer too. The reason why I am pushing the linerity is that while there are many dissonant opinons on other issues, it is the only thing the community members strongly agree for a change.
I am happy to be able to say that I don't think we're going to have issues like that in the future.
A downvote was applied to partially counter earlier whale votes as an experiment to reduce whale domination of voting influence. Not intended to express an opinion on the content nor result in a net reduction of rewards or reputation (automated notice)
You have the point.