Thank you, Marc, for your thoughtful comments. Let me just add a couple of responses:
1. The single transferable vote mechanism, as you guessed, was proposed because it encouraged proportional representation. This was done in response to feedback we received at the Scheme Workshop. As you suggest, this is a legitimate design decision, and I would appreciate additional feedback from the community on this issue. 2. You wrote: I also like Will's suggestion to allow people to register and to vote > at the same time (on one form). This will simplify the voting > process, for the voters at least, and hopefully attract a broader > participation. I still don't understand how this is supposed to work. If there is some kind of eligibility test (eg the ability and willingness to write 75 words on your interests in the Scheme standardization process), then what happens in the case of a questionable statement? Undoubtedly some people will feel that the SC's judgement in such a case might vary depending on who the person was voting for. As I recall, there was only one such case during the R6 registration period (and we erred on the side of accepting it), but, as Will said, the appearance of fairness counts, and I would like to avoid putting anything into the process that even creates the appearance of an opportunity for unfairness. (And in this respect I take your comments on the necessity for requalification very seriously.) --Mitch
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
