> > I see that the PEP 8001 is still being updated (voting method). Should > > we still expect new changes before the vote starts? > > I don't detect any groundswell of opposition anymore now that the > voting method changed.
I'm unhappy with the "[] Further discussion" choice. We have a governance crisis. Many people would like to see it resolved as soon as possible, I don't see the ability to vote for "[] Further discussion" as a way to resolve this crisis. There are 6 proposed governance PEPs (maybe 7? ;-)). I don't expect that everybody will agree on everything in a PEP, but everybody should be at least able to order them to vote, no? If no, well, maybe don't vote? Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 04:24, Tim Peters <tim.pet...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Nevertheless, I probably won't vote - I object to public ballots on > principle. I'm not surprised that someone doesn't like one part of the PEP 8001. But well, we need to move on and take a decision... > "Pure Condorcet" is close to trivial to tally: there is a Condorcet > winner, or there isn't. I wouldn't even bother to write code to > figure it out. For example, write a simple script to convert each > ballot to a single line for the following web page, paste the ballots > into the text box, and click the "Calculate all winners" button: > > https://www.cse.wustl.edu/~legrand/rbvote/calc.html Yes, I'm asking for such script. I didn't say that it would be overcomplicated. The PEP 8001 is not trivial, it expects a specific format: **DO NOT LEAVE ANY BRACKETS BLANK!** **DO NOT REPEAT A RANKING/NUMBER!** Maybe it would help to have a script to validate my own vote? (Also ensure that all choices are present?) > The result page will tell you whether or not a Condorcet winner > exists. As a bonus, it will also tell you who the winner would be > under 15 different ranked-ballot scoring methods. Which may be handy > to know in the unlikely case there isn't a Condorcet winner. For > example, if "Schulze" and "Hare" (which was called "IRV" in the > previous PEP iteration) both pick the same winner then, I bet most > people would say "ah, good enough". Hum, it seems like you are unhappy with the chosen voting method. Again, we have to move on and take a decision. We cannot discuss voting methods forever, and there is no perfect voting methods. Only tradeoffs. I looked at the length of the discussion, and I understood that everybody had the opportunity to express their opinion, and the discussion gone deeply in voting methods, as Carol, I was impressed by the level of the discussion :-) Victor _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/