ANN: Ballot for Complementary PEP308 Ternary VOTE

sik0fewl xxdigitalhellxx at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 5 23:47:17 CET 2003


phil hunt wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:48:41 -0800, Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> wrote:
> 
>>Norman Petry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is NOT a ballot for the "official" PEP-308 vote being run by
>>>Raymond Hettinger.  It is for a different vote that is intended to
>>>COMPLEMENT the results of the official vote, by using a different type
>>>of ballot, and a different method of tallying the results (Condorcet's
>>>Method), for those who may be interested.  If enough people choose to
>>>participate, it will provide a high-quality source of additional
>>>information about the preferences of the Python community regarding
>>>the
>>>ternary operator.
>>
>>In my opinion this is a very bad idea.  All a second concurrent vote is
>>going to do is create more confusion about which vote is official,
>>whether people have already voted, etc.
> 
> 
> I disagree. I think Condorcet is the best voting system to use for 
> this purpose. If the original vote had used it, there would be no 
> need for a second one.

Personally I think there SHOULD be two votes. One to decide if a 
conditional expression should even be included in the first place. Then 
if the decision is yes, decide what operator to use.

Well.. I suppose this could still be one "ballot," although it's two votes.

ie:
Yes/No/Neutral to PEP308
and then your top X choices. X=3 seems fine and the could be weighted in 
the order they're listed (if you like).

-- 
My $0.02 CDN
Ryan





More information about the Python-list mailing list