> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: William D Clinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:29:59 -0400 > Subject: [r6rs-discuss] voting process > Alan Bawden quoting Elf: > > 3) I do _NOT_ think that all registered voters for r6 should be > > automatically registered for the Steering Committee vote. This is > a > > separate issue with a somewhat different target audience. > > > > I can see that a case could be made for that. But I also find it hard to > > imagine why somebody we registered to vote on ratifying R6RS would be > > turned down to vote for a new Steering Committee. > > > > I guess I'd be interested in hearing other opinions about this. > > The appearance of fairness actually matters here. If you > use a voting process that appears to favor the R6 electorate, > then you will appear to confirm the already-likely impression > that this election matters only to those who care about the > language described by the R6RS. You should instead be making > every attempt to involve members of the Scheme community who > care about the future of Scheme, even if they do *not* care > about the R6RS.
The proposal that those who already registered for the R6 vote would automatically be registered for the SC election was simply a convenience for those who participated in the R6 *process*, whether they wound up supporting the R6 *language* or not. I would very much like to hear whether any others feel that this is a perceived advantage for supporters of the language described by the R6RS. I would like to hear any concrete suggestions that Will, or anyone else, has to reach out to the other members of the Scheme community. > For example, the R6 vote created an appearance of unfairness > by requiring those who voted against ratification to justify > their vote, but imposed no such requirement on those who > voted in favor of ratification. If you aren't careful about > the process you use for this vote, then you will reinforce > that existing impression of unfairness instead of undoing it. I am very sensitive about such an impression of unfairness, and I would appreciate any other specific comments anyone has about ways in which the proposed process, or the format of the current comment period, contributes to such an impression of unfairness, or about ways in which such an impression might be mitigated. > I think you should allow same-day, same-message registration, > and should require *everyone* to include their little bio > with their vote. That would not inconvenience those who > registered for the R6 vote, since they could just recycle > the same bio they submitted for the R6 vote, but it would go > some distance toward re-establishing an appearance of fairness. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "same-day, same-message registration". The registration process as currently envisaged requires only a single confirmation email, much as is done by many other web services. Requiring *everyone* to include their "little bio" with their registration would not be a problem if you think it's important. On the other hand, it is vital that the voters' "little bio" be disconnected from their *vote*, since I would not want there to be any impression that the SC's decision on the acceptability of a registration to be affected in any way by the voter's substantive preferences. Hence I would be opposed to any proposal to require *anyone* to include their little bio with their vote. --Mitch
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
