ternary operator vote

[jerf at compy.attbi.com]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:37:34 -0800, James J. Besemer wrote:
> concerns about voting protocol

Two things: One, PEPs are not inherently democratic. As the PEP process is
set up, what REALLY matters is whether Guido accepts the result of the
process.

Second, "fair" in a voting system is a virtually useless concept. Just
because 50.001% of a group votes that X should be done doesn't mean that
it's "fair" to go with X. Note that in the United States Federal
government and in all states that I'm aware of, Constitution changes
require a supermajority. 

There is nothing intrinsically "unfair" about requiring a supermajority.
In general, it's a good idea to require supermajority for things where you
don't want a lot of continuous change, such as a language spec. But again,
what matters is whether Guido accepts the results. Yes, I'm on the record
as disliking the proposal but this hold true regardless of the change
proposed; anything that I agreed with I'd also want a supermajority, in
the unlikely event that it went to a vote.

You're free to do as you like, but I doubt your concerns about voting
protocol will matter much.