On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 9:48:29 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
> I just had another look at the voting thread, where most votes were voiced
> in the first two days, and the almost-slient discussion thread, where
> mostly a few practical aspects of the migrations were discussed. From this,
> I don't get the impression that the most voters felt they needed more time
> to think or discuss their decision.
>
Discussions about the timing of the vote were mainly in the thread
"incremental migration to github?", not the discussion thread or the vote
thread.Also, I'm not sure it matters what "most voters" felt. If a few
people felt the need to delay, that should have an effect.
>
> In general, I would keep the voting system simple. The migration to github
> was one particular vote, but for example the voting on the doc styles was
> held without much of a prior discussion and on a shorter deadline.
>
> So maybe something simple as the following?
> "Small votes:" Have to have a github issue that is at least one week old,
> don't require a discussion on the mailing list and the voting period cannot
> be shorter than 4 days.
> "Big votes": Require a discussion thread on the mailing list that is at
> least one week old and the voting period cannot be shorter than 1.5 weeks.
> Upon the public request of a single member of the mailing list, every
> "small vote" can be upgraded to a "big vote". In this case, all previously
> handed-in votes are invalid and a discussion thread has to be opened.
>
> On Friday, 7 October 2022 at 17:43:02 UTC+2 John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>> I apologize for being indirect. I was responding to Dima's sentence, "...
>> the delay was requested by an individual ..." which implies that there was
>> just one person requesting the delay. I was pointing out, apparently too
>> indirectly, that more than one person had requested a delay, and perhaps
>> not everyone who requested a delay was guilty, in Dima's view, of some
>> transgression.
>>
>> In short: Dima, cut it out with the straw men ("straw man: an
>> intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is
>> easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument").
>>
>>
>> On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:45:27 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 12:19 AM Kwankyu Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 7:05:38 AM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Dima, presumably you're not talking about me, although I proposed
>>> that "we start a vote around October 1".
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I guess he means: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33725#comment:26
>>>
>>> yes, that's exactly what I meant.
>>>
>>> Dima
>>>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "sage-devel" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to [email protected].
>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/be5e2daa-6e2d-4437-bc3a-a8bf38f5a5c6n%40googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/bff3f1e3-53b5-4ff4-a12d-ccc3993eed0en%40googlegroups.com.
