On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:12 AM, rupert THURNER <[email protected]> wrote:
> > if you want to have a fair result even if you have similar possibilities in > the selection, one might consider the debian method of > voting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloneproof_Schwartz_Sequential_Dropping. > otherwise opencsw will be called thunderbay, not lakehead :) > rupert. That is an elegant solution when choosing amongst a group of like items. If we were determining the color of our logo I would be all for it. The major issue would be timely implementation. We use Ballotbin to hold our elections as its controlled by a third party and is therefore subject to less concern of rigging. A quick look at the software list referenced in the wikipedia site didn't immediately turn up a third party with the same capability. Instead its offered as software one may implement, and this could raise concerns on some peoples part. Additionally, if you accept that a choice to automate the release process and the use of peer reviews as being two different subjects, then there is no need to tie the choices together. Each choice stands on its own and can be determined separately without interference. Further, the peer review process is wholly defined by a collection of complaints and what-ifs and is not at the stage of being voted upon. The release process on the other hand has been posted for everyone to review, amendments / suggestions have been requested and considered. Is there some reason I'm not understanding that the two items must be determined together? At this point I can see no reason the release proposal would impede the development of a review proposal. However, the release process will suffer last minute delays if it waits for the review process to be defined. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
