-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 02:42:35PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >>> Well, we have this condorcet voting mechanism in Debian - I see no >>> reason to derive from this. IMHO this list + the lists of each >>> existing project seems apropriate. IMHO readers of the list are >>> interested voters (yes, there is an option that you buy a gang of >>> people who subscribe to the list and promote your favourite name - but >>> I guess this will not really happen). Votting mails should be signed >>> by a valid key. >> >> So in your opinion participants in the vote is readers of this and >> related lists that is part of the Debian ring of trust? > > Make a better suggestion if you think this is suboptimal.
Suggestion for what? I participated in the work towards concensus regarding a name for what has since been described as "thingy 1". I lost interest when I realized that the object of the debate was not only that but also other thingies. I will consider participating in a vote, too, depending on its design. No, I have no interest discussing (again) if it is better to limit the scope of this debate to "thingy1". Which also means I have no interest in discussing how to best design a vote. >> Consensus and democratic voting is *different* methods to reach a >> decision. > > Sure. > >> (and until you brought up the issue of voting I actually believed >> that you wanted to avoid that and instead take the needed time to >> reach consensus by open debate instead) > > I do not see any convergence to a consensus nor do I think that this > can be approached. I'd be happy if I'm wrong. Please prove me > wrong!!! I'd be so happy if that would happen. What I wanted to say with my paranthesis above was simply that I am surprised by your change of method. I did not mean to judge any of the methods, nor the switch. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjZCOoACgkQn7DbMsAkQLhbVQCfXN3anDR8jTRTvkzNyEhqsA7X XiIAnR71PgeJ4HPso//NIy2KXAhUkoKx =32XO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
