apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan Bloom" <...@covalent.net>
Subject RE: [VOTE] proposal for names of new binary usec impl(s)
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:03:37 GMT
> From: 'Aaron Bannert' [mailto:aaron@clove.org]
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 01:08:56PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > Well, for one thing, you can't make a proposal with just the names
> > you like.  A meritocracy means that you must accept that other
> > may not agree with your ideas.  Since there were other options
> > (whether you like them or not), they must be in the vote, or the
vote is
> > completely invalid.  Even if you want to veto those options, they
> > be in the vote, or you aren't giving people an opportunity to change
> > your mind.
> I don't want to get in to technicalities nor the definition of a
> meritocracy, but I would like to point out that by offering my
> proposal I'm in no way acting as though the other proposals don't
> exist. I'm just offering one solution, either you like it, don't care,
> or dislike it.

But by only offering your options, you have tainted the vote.  It would
be like if I said:

What is your favorite ice cream?

	[ ] Chocolate
	[ ] Strawberry

if I get 10 Chocolate votes and 3 Strawberry votes, I may be inclined to
say:  "Chocolate is the best ice cream flavor."  But I can't say that,
because I didn't offer Vanilla (or a hundred other flavors) as an
option.  By only offering the solution that you like, you automatically
bias the vote, and the whole vote becomes invalid.


View raw message