-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
The results so far in email seemed to be:
1) -3
2) +2/-1
3) -2/+1
4) +1/+1/0
Wow,
So that was a short voting period...
I"m not sure which voting system was applied here:
If we use Apache style voting, then vetos override all other votes,
and a minimum of 3 +1 votes are required, which means:
1 - 3 veto votes
2 - 2 +1's and one veto, which over rules the 2 +1's (there also were
only 2 +1's and not the minimum of 3)
3 - 1 +1 and two vetos, which over rule the +1 (there was only 1 +1
and not the minimum of 3)
4 - 2 +1 votes and no vetos, but still not the minimum of 3.
So an inconclusive vote.
If we are using the approval voting method describing in the Fogel
book (<http://producingoss.com/html-chunk/consensus-
democracy.html#voting>),
then I'd interpret the results this way by tossing out all -1's,
leaving:
1. 0
2. 2
3. 1
4. 2
Which makes 4 the winner.
However, more IRC discussion followed, and it seems like the option we
can all live with even though nobody really likes it is 3):
3) Make developer and end user releases identical (except for the
fact
that one has debug binaries and one optimized).
That leaves me mystified by the adoption of 3 (although I am not
actually against it).
Ted
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFDjj9avrorh/X8S0IRAhR1AJ0XDberr9j+GX3MlhRVWfVY2h1R5ACfZ8Nw
K1vceUfskd/OVKnqMnT0VSU=
=3wFe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
