On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 19:19 +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
On 4/27/06, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Why using the majority is not smooth?
>
> The problem is that if 4 people vote for something and 3 vote against it,
> and it is considered passed anyways it can result in alot of bad feelings.
> The "Apache way" is to try and reach consensus. Any sort of overruling is
> seen as a last resort.
That _seems_ to be reasonable, but then it should be for example +20%
not +2 votes.
But I think that it realy just seems to be rasonable because
if you set some +x or +x% limit then the result depends on the question.
Basicaly if you ask 'are you for' or 'are you against'?
If I know that it is controversial question and it will not pass,
I can revert the question to get the result I want.
It can seem to be absurd but I saw such a 'referendum' in real life.
They just wanted the result 'no' so they asked 'are you in favour of this?'
The majority voted 'yes' but the result was 'no' because the majority
was not big enough because of a rule similar to +x%.
Good point. Hopefully we can keep "politics" out of this.
Also, I object to the use of +/-0. How is that supposed to be
quantified? What are the implications when it comes to tie breaking?
--
Brad Douglas <rez touchofmadness com> KB8UYR
Address: 37.493,-121.924 / WGS84 National Map Corps #TNMC-3785
Also, I object to the use of +/-0. How is that supposed to be
quantified? What are the implications when it comes to tie breaking?
Brad,
+0 indicates mild support but not to the degree of being willing to help
implement the feature or take any responsibility.
-0 indicates mild disagreement, but not sufficient to try and stop (veto)
the proposal. A -0 also does not require significant justification. It
can be just a statement if mild unease with the idea.
Neither has any effect on tie breaking. I would stress that the "lazy
consensus" model of Apache, MapServer and GDAL is not about "close votes"
it is about reaching consensus with veto overrides only being a last
resort.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGF, http://osgeo.org
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 10:56 -0400, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Brad Douglas wrote:
> Also, I object to the use of +/-0. How is that supposed to be
> quantified? What are the implications when it comes to tie breaking?
Brad,
+0 indicates mild support but not to the degree of being willing to help
implement the feature or take any responsibility.
-0 indicates mild disagreement, but not sufficient to try and stop (veto)
the proposal. A -0 also does not require significant justification. It
can be just a statement if mild unease with the idea.
Neither has any effect on tie breaking. I would stress that the "lazy
consensus" model of Apache, MapServer and GDAL is not about "close votes"
it is about reaching consensus with veto overrides only being a last
resort.
I realize it's intended purpose, but if it has no real function beyond
"metadata" I'm against it. It'll only muddle issues of contention.
--
Brad Douglas <rez touchofmadness com> KB8UYR
Address: 37.493,-121.924 / WGS84 National Map Corps #TNMC-3785
> +0 indicates mild support but not to the degree of being willing to
> help implement the feature or take any responsibility.
>
> -0 indicates mild disagreement, but not sufficient to try and stop
> (veto) the proposal. A -0 also does not require significant
> justification. It can be just a statement if mild unease with the
> idea.
>
> Neither has any effect on tie breaking. I would stress that the
> "lazy consensus" model of Apache, MapServer and GDAL is not about
> "close votes" it is about reaching consensus with veto overrides
> only being a last resort.
I realize it's intended purpose, but if it has no real function beyond
"metadata" I'm against it. It'll only muddle issues of contention.
I don't agree -- Anything that can provide a better understanding of
what the community thinks can only help to create a better outcome -
especially when dealing with "issues of contention." Otherwise we just
guess and do what our own preference is.
Endless 7 page diatribes from dozens of folks about the philosophical
reasons for choosing a, b, or c gets to be too much to digest, the
beauty of something like +/-0 is that you just have to read the author &
the abstract ;).