On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 09:26:23PM +0000, Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2017-08-09, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > ... > > > Right now, it seems there is more support for f, which I understand to > > mean "do nothing" with respect to the current behavior in master. If > > anyone else would like to vote, please do so as soon as possible. I hope > > to release beta1 next week. > > For me, it is a different picture without a clear winner: > > Totals: > > +1 a) "literal dash + allowbreak" > +1 b) "special char" > +1 f) "buffer setting" > 0 d) "ERT" > -1 c) "keep 2.2 (literal dash)" > -1 e) "preamble code" > -1 g) "revert to 2.1" > > > I agree that there is a margin of error and I may have misunderstood or > missed some of the feedback. So, please correct me in case I got it wrong.
I see what you mean. Your translation of the comments into votes contains more information. In some sense, it is similar to the type of vote where each participant ranks the options. However, for the final vote and the outcome, do you agree that we must use the standard voting procedure where each participant chooses one and only one option (and does not vote for/against any other option)? I can see the disadvantages to that, but I'm guessing that is what everyone expected when the vote started, and that was the type of vote used in the previous vote, so we should not implement a more advanced voting procedure for this one. Further, we can only count votes of participants in this thread. For example, regarding option "d", I do not consider Richard as having voted. Hopefully the participants in this vote will make it clear which option they prefer so we do not have to make guesses. I will CC them directly. If anyone else would like to vote, please do so as soon as possible. As for a "_clear_ winner", one thing that I think many agreed with in the previous vote is that a winner is a winner. Whether it is 2 to 1, or 10 to 9, we should accept the outcome and move forward. Thanks, Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
