On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:08:59AM -0600, Darin McBride wrote: > > Each non-VM LS may post +1 or -1, and the aggregate of those form the LAV, > > which is +1 if the total is positive, -1 if negative, or abstain if 0. > > > > Voting closes after 72 hours of the last vote by anybody or after the > > outcome can no longer be affected by further votes. > > In the interests of "stability" ... I'd suggest: > > ---- > > Each non-VM LS may post +1, -1 or abstain (which can cancel out a previous +1 > or -1 vote). The last vote posted is that user's final vote. The aggregate > of > those from the LAV will be -1 unless the total +1s exceed the -1s by at least > 10%, in which case it is +1.
That makes the existing rules harder to make more restrictive. Are you sure you want this in the bootstrap version? It would seem more logical to me to introduce a proposal to make this adjustment six months in or so, no? > All -1s, whether from VM or non-VM, SHOULD include a reason, as in what is > preventing them from voting +1, so that patches to that effect could be > proposed. Right, so, that's common politeness to my mind, but seems trivial to amend in afterwards. > The first paragraph here introduces a mild bias towards caution. The second > introduces a mild bias towards progress (which is not the same as change). > Note that the abstain here is slightly based on the "=0" option for voting on > perlmonks - before that was introduced, someone could accidentally click on a > ++ or -- and have no way to undo that click without reloading the page prior > to submitting other votes. Mmm. Right, ok, explicit retraction/change of vote stuff is probably worth having. > And thus, my vote for your proposal, Matt, is: "-1, because it's missing > these > modifications." :) Basically: Given these modifications are all minor tweaks to things the proposal explicitly renders tweakable, I'm inclined to ask - why do you believe having me making the changes you desire unilaterally would be more in the spirit of this proposal than letting it go forwards and proposing your amendments in the normal way afterwards? I mean, I can totally tweak the document before it's finalised. But I can't see what that gains over "present these as amendments afterwards" ? (I'm really not trying to be snarky here, much though 'not snarky' doesn't exactly come naturally to me ;) -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/ http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/ Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our CPAN commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team. _______________________________________________ List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/ Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org