Summary of PEP 308 Vote for a Ternary Operator

Mike C. Fletcher mcfletch at rogers.com
Tue Mar 11 04:59:34 CET 2003


I'd guess that many people who weren't interested in debating the issue 
(and quite probably didn't want the "feature") didn't realise the 
official vote was going on.  I found out it had already started by 
accidentally clicking on a message in the later thread that described 
how to do an all-no vote (which luckily is what I wanted).  (I had, like 
most people, just been binning the hundreds of messages with Pep 308 in 
the title, and never noticed the messages describing voting procedure in 
that flurry).

The "complementary" vote thread had the advantage of coming somewhat 
later, and really obviously describing an active/in-process vote.  It 
also had the advantage of not having a huge "what type of vote shall we 
use" thread surrounding it's root post ;) .  Of course, the... ahem... 
involved voting process kept me from actually _voting_ in it ;) .

Oh well, hopefully Guido will reveal that the whole Pep 308 thing was 
one of his wonderful April Fools tricks ;) . (Though it's not even close 
to the whole Parrot thing as of yet. (There are still naive people who 
believe there's a "Parrot Virtual Machine" going to come out for Python 
and Perl (I think the people who are keeping that alive after all this 
time are just sick ;) ))).

If not we'll have to foment another revolution :) ;) ,
Mike

Erik Max Francis wrote:

>Stephen Horne wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Funny that this differs so much from the complimentary vote. Obviously
>>fewer people voted on that, but I'm wondering if there was some
>>self-selection biassing process going on in one or both votes (e.g.
>>maybe the no-change crowd care more on average, and were therefore
>>more willing to put time into a second vote).
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>>    
>>
>
>I suspect there is a strong selection effect taking place here; I know I
>didn't bother voting on the unofficial vote.  It may well that people
>who were in favor of the PEP didn't bother voting in the second one
>simply because they felt that they had invested enough time selecting
>their favored forms in the first vote that it wasn't worth the effort to
>repeat it again, whereas more people against the PEP were willing to
>vote again because it required little effort and they felt so strongly.
>
>Who knows?  But I'll bet some wise guy's solution to the discrepancy
>will be to suggest another vote.
>  
>
_______________________________________
  Mike C. Fletcher
  Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
  http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/








More information about the Python-list mailing list