On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 22:38 +0200, David MENTRE wrote:
> Interesting suggestion. So you propose to have:
>
> me > A("u") > B("u","t") > C(all)> A can only vote on questions with tag "u" for me. No, I propose demexp enforces me > A > B > C and the client enforces the restriction of A to tag u, B to tag u or t: if A votes on t unexpectedly I just dump A as my delegate. My concern is: 1) complexity of maintaining delegation lists in the presence of an open set of tags 2) the choice of which tags to assign to a question itself becomes a political issue The argument for simplicity is clear. Point (2) however is important: I don't want to see the voting system *itself* being the focus of political activity, instead of discussion of the real issues. EG: "Subscribe to restrictions on CO2 emissions" is an issue, should it be tagged "Finance"? It certainly has financial implications.. but do we want to have a big argument about how to tag the question ... or should we discuss the actual question? I think it would be better if the tagging were informative, rather than having any enforcible consequences. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sourceforge dot net>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Demexp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/demexp-dev
