On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:10, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 16:05, Darren Dale <dsdal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jarrod Millman <mill...@berkeley.edu> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Charles R Harris >>>> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Should the release containing the datetime/hasobject changes be called >>>>> >>>>> a) 1.5.0 >>>>> b) 2.0.0 >>>> >>>> My vote goes to b. >>> >>> You don't matter. Nor do I. >> >> Jarrod is on the steering committee. > > You seem to be pointing out that Darren's vote doesn't count but Jarrod's > does. > > Really, that's a view of the steering committee idea that seems to me > a bit miserable.
It's just the way that voting works. Voting cannot work without clear membership rules. That's why we try to avoid voting as much as possible. That's why the discussion has gone on so long. We want to hear everyone's input (especially Darren's) and try to work towards a consensus solution that everyone can live with. When that fails, and there is significant dissent over the major solutions at the end of the discussion, then you fall back to the much inferior voting mechanism. Making technical decision by a vote is the worst possible outcome, but it's the last decision mechanism available short of a BDFL. Trust me, the steering committee would much prefer not to decide anything by any means. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
