Michael A. Smith wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:49:08AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
In truth, I made a mistake in vetoing, since I never wanted to stop Peter, it was just a strong opinion but I wrongly threw in a -1... (ya know, it happens that we use it in discussing, just for opinions, but when you follow 28 lists it sometimes happens to make a mistake).
In the past, I've advocated that people avoid using -1 to mean "strong
against, but not a veto." It is just too confusing. People always end up
having to append "yah that's a veto" or "not a veto". Why the hell use the short numeric voting form if you just have to explain it in prose?
;-)
To that end, I adovcate using something like "-0.9" to mean you're against
it, but it isn't an official veto. Use -1 when you're actually vetoing.
I've always thought that's what -0 was for. 0 meaning it's not a vote that counts, and - to indicate you're against. If you throw qualitative words in there (like "strongly against, but don't want to actually veto"), then you'd need to explain that in prose.
In jakarta-commons, and I believe in other areas of jakarta, the voting "ballots" tend to look like this:
[ ] +1 I am in favor of this action and will help [ ] +0 I am in favor of this action but cannot help [ ] -0 I am not in favor of this action [ ] -1 I am opposed to this action and here is why:
I think it works well.
Anyway, the bottom line is: "*never* use -1 if it's not a veto"
Anything greater than -1 (-0.9 , +1000, etc) will be regarded as being fancy ;-)
I think I'll go with -0.9 for strong opposition, anyway.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------