Anton Vredegoor wrote: > Antoon Pardon wrote: >> On 2007-04-25, Anton Vredegoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> >>>>>> That's a good point, and also a valid reason for restricting the >>>>>> voting community to PSF members. Thanks, Alex. >>>>> So in order to avoid a suspicion of a conflict of interest you want to >>>>> turn the whole thing into private property of the PSF? >>>>> >>>>> That is the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever >>>> I kind of understand why they would want to do this. If you have >>>> no limitations on who may vote, such a contest can easily turn >>>> into a contest of who can mobilize the biggest clan of supporters. >>> Sure, any democratic process can be derailed by a coordinated effort of >>> people with a different mentality. To prevent such things by killing the >>> democratic process oneself right at the beginning of a project is a >>> peculiar way of avoiding this risk. >> As far as I understood the idea was to reward excellence. The process >> to achieve this can be democratic, but in that case it is just a means >> to an end. The democratic process was not an end itself. > > Yes, but this sub thread was about avoiding a suspicion of a conflict of > interests. If this suspicion is to be avoided by just openly promoting > the interests of the members of the PSF that is one hell of a way of > solving the problem. > Perhaps you misunderstood. The quote you were reacting to said """... for restricting the *voting* community to PSF members""" (emphasisi added here).
In other words, the PSF members get to decide who wins awards, while themselves being ineligible. Does this make a difference? regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
