My personal thought is to open the vote to everyone, but also require that
each person include a line on what type of user/developer they are, something
along the lines of frequent committer, infrequent committer, read only access
(play the game, use the SCS to keep up to date), and not curre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lalo Martins wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:05:55 -0500, Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote:
>> completely unbalanced as it takes eons of mind-bendingly boring
>> snooze, summon, attack, snooze until summoned character is dead
>> cycles. Am I just missing the
Mark Wedel wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
>
> It is probably a good method to use, because I doubt any system will get a
> majority on the first vote, and it avoids run-offs.
To me this seems a reasonable system, however I think we should consider
the "Schulze method
Raphaël Quinet a écrit :
>
> Previous messages mentioned the option to weight the votes. If the
> main developers are happy with the outcome of the vote without any
> weighting, then it is not an issue anyway. But if the results of the
> vote are not so clear, then Mark (and maybe Leaf, Ryo and o
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:46:13 -0700, Mark Wedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
>
> It is probably a good method to use, because I doubt any system will get a
> majority on the first vote, and it avoids run-offs.
I agree, this is a good method. I
This seems to be a fair system, considering it aims at getting a majority.
Mark Wedel a écrit :
>
>
> You basically described the instant run off system, which is sometimes
> called
> the australian system. More info:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
>
> It is probably
6 matches
Mail list logo
