Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Apr 12, 2005 9:05 AM, Daniel Fagerstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/>
I don't see that there is any harm in separating VPC's into a newMight be. But as long as I haven't seen any concrete use cases I have a _slight_ preference for the simplicity of Stefano's proposal before the flexibility in having separate sections or component names. But I honestly don't care that much.
section, but I do see a lot of possible good in the long run.
To me it seem like a matter of taste and I propose that anyone who care enough sumarizes the alternatives and start a vote.
I was writing the call for votes, but this one seems different as we have to choose between 4 possible choices and not a single proposal. Therefore asking people to choose only one solution doesn't seem good to me as it only identifies people's most preferred choice, but not acceptable ones which may actually be the consensus solution.
As I haven't found about this kind of vote in the ASF docs [1] nor in our (still draft) guidelines [2], I think we need to decide how to make this decision.
Another IMO more appriopriate way of voting is to give each choice a number and choose the one with the highest sum. But there are different ways to give numbers.
1 - vote +1/0/-1 on each of the 4 possible choices. Inadequate IMO as the choice of lazy consensus is likely to have a lot of zeros and then rank lower than extreme choices for which people have strong opinoons.
2 - rank each solution from 1 to 4, and choose the one with the highest sum. Seems good except that it allows people to rank several choices equally
3 - distribute a total of 10 points and distribute them freely among choices. Doesn't have the above-mentioned problem, but allows "extremists" to give 10 points to a particular solution.
Considering pros and cons, solution 2 has my choice. Deciding on how to vote on multiple choices will also be a good occasion to start working again at formalizing our rules.
Thoughts?
If no consensus appears on this voting issue, we'll have to vote on votes. And that vote will also have multiple choices. Recursive meta-voting ;-)
Sylvain
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html [2] site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/guidelines.xml
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
