Thorsten Scherler wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > The Apache voting system is not used to settle competing views. > > It is intended to ensure that people are happy with the > > proposed course. If a vote fails then we go back to the > > proposal stage and come up with something different. > > You mean we cannot decide between two proposals? That is new because I > have seen it a lot on other list. > > I was thing about: > - alternative A > - alternative B > > ...but if you say that is not possible,...
I am saying that decisions should be reached through consensus rather than competition. Some projects use voting too often, rather than working through the issues. In this case, it would be better to evolve the Forrest description until it is suitable. In extreme cases, the "aternatives" type of voting might make sense. However, most of the ones that i have seen become quite confused. It is easy to reach a stalemate with for example only three votes for each alternative, or even a -1 on each side which stops both proposals. The Apache voting system is geared towards assessing one proposal at a time. However, we really should strive to do things without voting, i.e. "just do it" or if it needs discussion, then discuss the proposals until the decision is obvious. --David
