Ian Jackson writes ("Call for Votes (Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order)"): > There is apparently no counterproposal, so I hereby propose and call > for a vote on the following resolution:
The one-week voting period has now finished. Result: Further Discussion. The choices were: Choice X: Do not use rule 9, overrule maintainer, etc., as above. Choice S: Sort IPv4 addrs according to rule 9 in getaddrinfo Choice F: Further discussion The votes were (decreasing preference listing for each voter): Ian: X F S Andi: X F S AJ: F XS Steve: F X S Determination of the winning outcome: X vs. F: 2x X > F (Ian, Andi); 2x X < F (AJ, Steve). X therefore fails since it needs 3:1. S vs. F: Everyone agrees that S < F, so S fails. Only F remains. Discussion regarding supermajority mechanics: Constitution A.6(3) says that failing to meet a supermajority completely removes the option from consideration. Therefore if anyone had voted X S F they would have left themselves open to their vote being counted as in favour of S due to X's elimination for lack of supermajority. In the past we have sometimes used the phrasing "we overrule the maintainer if we get the required supermajority". This has a subtly different effect. In this case this would have resulted in us having to ask the Chairman for a casting vote between X(non-overrule) and F. Are we 100% clear who the Chairman is at the moment ? There is of course a third alternative construction for the ballot: put both options on as separate options. This would I think be the cleanest approach in cases where significant confusion might arise; and I think that with hindsight I ought to have done that in this case. Providing two separate options means that I would have been able to express my preference: X(overrule) F X(non-overrule) S. People who propose resolutions for the TC should consider which of these ways of doing it are best. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]