Condorcet analysis of Official PEP308 Ballots

[Anthony Baxter]

>>> Norman Petry wrote
> Of course, the fact that the status quo is clearly preferred by a
> majority in both votes does not necessarily mean that the ternary should
> not be implemented.  It is likely that many features that have been
> added to Python would not have received the support of a majority when
> they were first introduced.  For this reason, the SOCIAL RANKING is
> probably a much more useful result than the SINGLE WINNER when trying to
> decide how to resolve this issue.

Um, huh? A vote was held, a majority said "no change", and suddenly now
you're claiming that "obviously a vote isn't the important thing"?

For what it's worth, I ended up not voting, after all was said and done 
I ended up not caring whether it goes in or not. But to turn around after 
the vote with this sort of comment "well, not everything that went into 
python would have won a vote, that's not the important thing" seems like 
sour grapes of the worst sort.

Anthony.
-- 
Anthony Baxter     <anthony at interlink.com.au>   
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.