ternary operator vote

Erik Max Francis max at alcyone.com
Tue Feb 11 03:40:04 EST 2003


"James J. Besemer" wrote:

> If the PEP is defeated and a known opponent controled the voting (or
> more
> importantly the review process) then there's an opportunity for
> lasting
> animosity.  Some will always wonder if something didn't take place
> behind the
> scenes to affect the outcome.

But not if the results are fully accounted for -- i.e., the votetaker
posts all the results publicly, with the (mangled) email addresses of
each of each of the voters and their votes; model it after the Usenet
CFVs.  Then, after the vote's done, everybody gets to inspect the
results.  An ill-intentioned votetaker would have a tough time skewing
the results in their favor if everybody can see their own votes.

My concern (which I already raised) was about the selection of voting
_processes_, not the vote itself.  The original suggested process seemed
to me rather noticeably tilted toward assuring the PEP's failure.  Just
take the vote, hand the results to the BDFL.  Let him do what he wants
with them.

> If the PEP is defeated after being led by a known proponent, then
> there's
> much less liklihood of hurt feelings.  It's easier to assume the
> proponent
> did everything he could and simply did not succeed.

That's probably true.  Ideally it would be an independent third party
with no vested interest (which would probably be hard to get).  With
full disclosure, I don't really see a problem with the vote itself,
regardless of who the votetaker is; I just want to make sure everybody
(both for and against) agrees with the _process_ before it gets started.

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ I always entertain great hopes.
\__/ Robert Frost
    REALpolitik / http://www.realpolitik.com/
 Get your own customized newsfeed online in realtime ... for free!




More information about the Python-list mailing list