-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ok, so this reply is almost exclusively about voting/process rather
than the specific
issue at hand.
On Nov 30, 2005, at 4:46 PM, Heikki Toivonen wrote:
Ted Leung wrote:
So that was a short voting period...
Sorry, I jumped the gun (and I didn't even specify how long the voting
period would be). I made assumptions about the people who responded to
the original discussion and IRC discussion. Btw, I should have
provided
a link for the IRC:
http://wiki.osafoundation.org/script/getIrcTranscript.cgi?
date=20051130
starting at 12:45, ending 15:31. The discussion did include a bunch of
other stuff as well.
I"m not sure which voting system was applied here:
I don't think we have settled on a voting system for us yet, but I
didn't have Apache in mind, except that we have the +1/-1/neutral
options. Although it seems like with the added IRC discussion the -1s
acted like vetos and 3 emerged as the one with no vetos.
So I'm not saying we have to use the Apache system, but we ought to
be clear on
what system we are using and so on. That includes the role of IRC
discussions.
If a vote taken in e-mail can be overridden/augmented in IRC, then
that makes things
quite confusing and reduces the usefulness of voting as decision
making mechanism.
Want to start a new thread on OSAF voting system?
I am sure that we are going to be having some discussions about this
topic pretty soon,
but I don't think that we are quite ready to start that thread yet.
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.
Except the options given for 4 where not the same, so there would be 1
vote for 4a and 1 vote for 4b.
Could you then rephrase the ballot in terms of 4a and 4b?
All the email+IRC discussion implied to me that options 1), 2) and the
custom options for 4) so far would be strongly opposed by at least one
person, and while nobody really loved 3) everybody could live with it.
Let's say the book isn't closed on this until noon tomorrow, so feel
free to cast your vote still. Seems to me 3) and 4) are the remaining
viable candidates, with the caveat that you'd need to suggest
something
new for 4) that hasn't been suggested before. (Or if we don't have
vetos
then all options are still open.)
PS. And I think we'd need a little addition to 3) as well. If the
releases are going to be identical except that one is built in debug
mode the releases should be called maybe "debug" and "end-user"
release,
or something along those lines to clarify the difference.
--
Heikki Toivonen
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
- ----
Ted Leung Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
PGP Fingerprint: 1003 7870 251F FA71 A59A CEE3 BEBA 2B87 F5FC 4B42
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFDjkxyvrorh/X8S0IRAtSRAJ9xlyMDkhgXOfgdOSJQK5Lr7/rVLgCg+zNO
phIQVG0GyTRxSKs1ufpdYQM=
=sfxN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
