Jim,

>Well I rather feel that discussion is key and, that with a healthy discussion of any single wish the end result will make itself evident.

Once again we are on one line, I truly believe that after a discussion a certain wish can turn out to be nothing, or turn out to be more complex than in first thought. By talking with eachother about this wish you can create a crystal clear motivation for your wish, By refering to the discussion you can give the VFP team a very good reason to add it in a future release.

Rather than voting we should have a kind of judge who makes the final decission whether to add to the wishlist or not.

>Another reason I prefer to leave voting out of the equation is that it drives the issue with other factors not necessarily related to the specific wish at hand. Things like relative "importance" or which version or whatever.

Yeah, People who vote against the wish because someone else has purposed the wish or vote before.

.....It's funny. This is like comparing the jury-judging system common in the US and the single judge system held here in europe.

>*IF* we ever got to group consideration of what should go to MS (and/or in which order) then by all means voting would be critical. But I see a smaller step first, namely discussing any wish thoroughly so that if/when it get onto the UT Wish List, it can be more than a one-liner.

Agreed, Now I know why you dn't have much confidence in the Wish list. This proposal could lead to a more valued wishlist.

Walter,