FAQ
IMPORTANT NOTE:

This is NOT a ballot for the "official" PEP-308 vote being run by
Raymond Hettinger. It is for a different vote that is intended to
COMPLEMENT the results of the official vote, by using a different type
of ballot, and a different method of tallying the results (Condorcet's
Method), for those who may be interested. If enough people choose to
participate, it will provide a high-quality source of additional
information about the preferences of the Python community regarding the
ternary operator.

This vote is NOT intended to compete with, or substitute for the
official vote. Please participate in both votes if you have the time,
but BE SURE to vote in the official one if you care about the outcome of
PEP-308. See the explanations in my posting to comp.lang.python two
days ago for more information about the reasons for this supplemental
vote on PEP-308 ("ANNOUNCE: Complementary VOTE re: PEP 308 Ternary
Proposal", Sun, 02 Mar 2003 17:44:33 -0600).


NOMINATIONS

The two-day nomination period for additional syntax proposals has now
ENDED. No additional nominations were received, so the ballot is as
follows:


BALLOT

----------
XX NO TERNARY
XX t if C else f
XX if C then t else f
XX (if C: t else: f)
XX if C: t else: f
XX C ? t : f
XX C ? t ! f
XX cond(C, t, f)
XX C ?? t || f
XX C then t else f
XX t when C else f
XX C ? t else f
XX C -> t else f
XX C -> (t, f)
XX [t if C else f]
XX ifelse C: t else f
XX select C: t else f
XX when C: t else f
XX case C: t else f
XX <if C then t else f>
XX C and t else f
----------


HOW TO VOTE

Voting is a simple matter of RANKING the alternatives of interest by
replacing the 'XX' that precedes each option with a 2-digit number. For
example, you would use '01' for your FAVOURITE (highest-ranked) option,
and greater numbers (02, 03,...) for lower-ranked alternatives.

You may RE-ORDER the options on the ballot. It is often easier when
there are many options to reorder them manually from best to worst, and
then assign rankings. Note though, that you must STILL assign a rank
number to each option, since it is always the NUMBER that determines the
rank, not the ordering.

You may assign the SAME RANK to multiple options if you consider them to
be equally good/bad. Doing this is equivalent to abstaining from
participation in any decision between these equally-ranked alternatives.

To simplify voting, you may TRUNCATE your ballot by leaving certain
options UNRANKED (for any options you consider to be so bad and
unwinnable as to not be worth considering). If you wish to do this,
either:
a) leave 'XX' in front of the unwanted option(s) in your submitted
ballot, rather than replacing it with a rank number, or
b) delete the line(s) of the ballot that contain the unwanted options.
You can also use a combination of both methods. In either case, these
truncated options will be interpreted the same as if they had been
ranked EQUALLY, and LOWER than all explicitly ranked alternatives.

While truncation and equal rankings provide convenience, ranking many
options (even those you dislike) is a good idea. See the STRATEGY TIPS
section (below) for reasons why.

Note that the status quo option of "NO TERNARY" simply appears as one of
the available options, and every other proposed syntax appears as a
separate option on the ballot. By placing "NO TERNARY" somewhere within
the middle of your ranking, you can express the desire to have a ternary
operator added to Python only if certain forms of syntax are used, and
reject alternatives that you dislike (while still expressing preferences
among these bad alternatives, in case one or more of them proves to be
winnable). The status quo option can of course also be ranked first or
last, if you feel either that (a) no ternary is acceptable in any form,
or alternately, (b) should be added to the language at any cost.

A sample completed ballot might look like:

----------
02 (if C: t else: f)
01 t if C else f
02 NO TERNARY
XX if C then t else f
03 if C: t else: f
----------

Here, the voter's favourite option is "t if C else f". The 4th option
is unranked, and could have instead been deleted to indicate the same
thing. Surrounding lines of hyphens marking the beginning and end of
the ballot are appreciated for clarity, but not required.


SUBMITTING YOUR BALLOT

You may vote by submitting your email ballot to:

------------------
pepvote at canada.com
------------------

Your final vote must be received within 96 HOURS (4 days, approx.
Wed-Sat) of the time this message appears on comp.lang.python and/or
comp.lang.python.announce for it to be counted in the final result.

A CONFIRMATION message will be returned for each ballot that is
received, identifying any problems. Unconfirmed ballots will not appear
in the results, so if you don't receive a reply within a few hours, you
may wish to send your ballot again (I'm confirming votes manually, so
the response will not be immediate).

If you decide to CHANGE YOUR VOTE, just send a revised ballot containing
your new preferences. The last confirmed ballot for each email address
will be the one that appears in the final results.


RESULTS

Results will be published on Sunday, March 9th, but NOT before the
voting period of the "official" vote has ended (Noon, EST). Published
results will be sent to comp.lang.python and comp.lang.python.announce.

Results will include (among other things) a list containing each voter's
NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS (munged), and COMPLETED BALLOT to allow for
independent verification. Therefore, if you do not want any or all of
this information about you made public, DO NOT VOTE! Please refer to
the previous message announcing this vote for details about what types
of information will appear in the results.


STRATEGY TIPS

You may be unfamiliar with CONDORCET'S METHOD, the system of voting used
here (unless you happen to be a member of the Debian Project :-).
Although completing a ranked ballot is technically very easy, if you
wish to know how to maximise the chances of getting the outcome you
want, you should read following information before completing your
ballot:

*****

1. Condorcet's method of counting ranked ballots is very different from
other systems (STV/AV/IRV, Borda, etc.) that also use a ranked ballot.
Therefore, it is a bad idea to attempt to vote strategically based on
what you know (or think you know) about how those systems work. The
best strategies for one method of voting will usually fail very badly
when applied in another, even if the form of the ballot is similar.

2. You should NOT assume that ranking any UNACCEPTABLE options will harm
the chances of electing your PREFERRED option(s). Condorcet's method is
a system of pairwise voting, where the overall result is determined by
finding the majority winners of a series of two-way races between every
possible pair of alternatives. Not ranking (truncating) some options,
or assigning the same rank to a group of options is therefore equivalent
to ABSTAINING from participation in any decision between those
equally-ranked alternatives. Therefore, if the final choice in the
election is between two options, both of which you dislike -- but not
EQUALLY -- you may later regret not having participated in that
decision.

3. You should also NOT vote for what you believe to be an acceptable,
popular choice (the "lesser evil" compromise) ahead of your true
favourite(s), in the belief that this will somehow help to prevent the
election of a popular, disliked alternative (the "greater evil"). This
type of strategy is often necessary in plurality ("first-past-the-post")
voting, but is ineffective and unnecessary with Condorcet's method.
Condorcet's method finds the best compromise automatically, if one is
needed, so doing this will simply harm the chances of electing your true
favourite. See http://www.electionmethods.org/Condorcet.htm for a
detailed explanation of this.

*******************************************************
With CONDORCET'S METHOD, you will maximise the power and effectiveness
of your ballot by providing a COMPLETE and SINCERE expression of your
true preferences. You should only rank options equally if you genuinely
consider them to be equally good (or bad).
*******************************************************

--
Norman Petry

Search Discussions

  • Erik Max Francis at Mar 5, 2003 at 2:48 am

    Norman Petry wrote:

    This is NOT a ballot for the "official" PEP-308 vote being run by
    Raymond Hettinger. It is for a different vote that is intended to
    COMPLEMENT the results of the official vote, by using a different type
    of ballot, and a different method of tallying the results (Condorcet's
    Method), for those who may be interested. If enough people choose to
    participate, it will provide a high-quality source of additional
    information about the preferences of the Python community regarding
    the
    ternary operator.
    In my opinion this is a very bad idea. All a second concurrent vote is
    going to do is create more confusion about which vote is official,
    whether people have already voted, etc.

    Whether one is satisfied with the current _official_ voting process
    (which many people are not), if you want to conduct additional add-on
    voting processes for your own edification, at least wait until the
    current one is finished to eliminate confusion.

    Saying "This is not the official vote" and "This is a different vote" is
    all well and good, but conducting the vote at all is going to great more
    confusion than it is going to be worth. Imagine five or six people
    getting the same idea and concurrently conducting their own (unofficial)
    votes, all while we're still waiting for the results on the official one
    (the only one which counts).
    The two-day nomination period for additional syntax proposals has now
    ENDED. No additional nominations were received, so the ballot is as
    follows:
    Uh, I never even read about any nomination period _beginning_.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ And your daddy died for you / And I'll do the same
    \__/ India Arie
    Bosskey.net: Counter-Strike / http://www.bosskey.net/cs/
    A personal guide to Counter-Strike.
  • Thomas Wouters at Mar 5, 2003 at 2:59 am

    On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 06:48:41PM -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:

    In my opinion this is a very bad idea. All a second concurrent vote is
    going to do is create more confusion about which vote is official,
    whether people have already voted, etc.
    Fortunately, neither vote is 'official'. There is only one vote that counts,
    and His name is Guido. (Not that I didn't vote against on both ballots,
    making sure the paper was punched through clearly, completely and all the
    way. :)

    --
    Thomas Wouters <thomas at xs4all.net>

    Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
  • Erik Max Francis at Mar 5, 2003 at 3:43 am

    Thomas Wouters wrote:

    Fortunately, neither vote is 'official'.
    One is explicitly blessed by Guido as a means of determining the
    communities' reaction; the PEP had always indicated that the decision
    would be put to a vote.

    No one disputes that it's ultimately Guido's decision, but one vote is
    most definitely official and all the others are not.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ And your daddy died for you / And I'll do the same
    \__/ India Arie
    Bosskey.net: Counter-Strike / http://www.bosskey.net/cs/
    A personal guide to Counter-Strike.
  • Norman Petry at Mar 5, 2003 at 6:18 am

    On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 20:48, Erik Max Francis wrote:
    Norman Petry wrote:
    This is NOT a ballot for the "official" PEP-308 vote being run by
    Raymond Hettinger. It is for a different vote that is intended to
    COMPLEMENT the results of the official vote, by using a different type
    of ballot, and a different method of tallying the results (Condorcet's
    Method), for those who may be interested. If enough people choose to
    participate, it will provide a high-quality source of additional
    information about the preferences of the Python community regarding
    the
    ternary operator.
    In my opinion this is a very bad idea. All a second concurrent vote is
    going to do is create more confusion about which vote is official,
    whether people have already voted, etc.
    I do not see how I could possibly have been more clear about which vote
    is official -- for those of you who might be confused: it ISN'T MINE.

    I honestly see no reason to believe that any one will be confused by
    this additional vote. Each of the posted ballots has its own
    self-contained and consistent procedure for submission. Whichever
    ballot the voter uses, they will generally just forward the message via
    email to the specified address, filling in the ballot and removing the
    directions before sending it. There hasn't been any confusion so far,
    in the 20 or so ballots I've received.
    Saying "This is not the official vote" and "This is a different vote" is
    all well and good, but conducting the vote at all is going to great more
    confusion than it is going to be worth. Imagine five or six people
    getting the same idea and concurrently conducting their own (unofficial)
    votes, all while we're still waiting for the results on the official one
    (the only one which counts).
    I don't think we need to worry about that particular slippery slope :-)
    Organizing a vote like this is a fair amount of work, so I do not
    foresee another half-dozen people deciding to conduct their own polls
    any time soon.

    I clearly stated in my ballot message that I will NOT be posting the
    results of my vote until AFTER the voting period for the official vote
    is complete. I have no wish to bias the outcome of the official vote in
    any way by prematurely releasing results.
    The two-day nomination period for additional syntax proposals has now
    ENDED. No additional nominations were received, so the ballot is as
    follows:
    Uh, I never even read about any nomination period _beginning_.
    Damn.

    I posted it to Usenet, and had thought that the message would be routed
    to the mailing list as well, but it seems that something went wrong. I
    now cannot find the message in the mailing list archives, or anywhere on
    the web! Maybe that's why the response to the nomination period wasn't
    very good (or maybe it's because people felt that 21 choices was more
    than enough...)

    The strange thing is that I DID receive one early response via email on
    March 3rd, so at least some people must have received this message:

    ANNOUNCE: Complementary VOTE re: PEP 308 Ternary Proposal, Sun, 02 Mar
    2003 17:44:33 -0600

    I can only suppose that the message was cancelled by someone, although I
    can't understand why (it was long - about 500 lines, but I've seen
    messages double that length. Is there some limit on message size that I
    violated? I'm a beginner when it comes to Usenet).

    Anyway, the subject of my vote and the reasons for it were explained in
    that message, so I will resend some or all of it tomorrow so that people
    have the necessary background information. The unofficial vote will
    continue as planned in any case -- too late to turn back now, even if I
    wanted to.

    --
    Norman Petry
  • Phil hunt at Mar 5, 2003 at 1:49 pm

    On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:48:41 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
    Norman Petry wrote:
    This is NOT a ballot for the "official" PEP-308 vote being run by
    Raymond Hettinger. It is for a different vote that is intended to
    COMPLEMENT the results of the official vote, by using a different type
    of ballot, and a different method of tallying the results (Condorcet's
    Method), for those who may be interested. If enough people choose to
    participate, it will provide a high-quality source of additional
    information about the preferences of the Python community regarding
    the
    ternary operator.
    In my opinion this is a very bad idea. All a second concurrent vote is
    going to do is create more confusion about which vote is official,
    whether people have already voted, etc.
    I disagree. I think Condorcet is the best voting system to use for
    this purpose. If the original vote had used it, there would be no
    need for a second one.



    --
    *|*| Philip Hunt <philh at cabalamat.org> |*|*|
    *|*| "Memes are a hoax; pass it on" |*|*|
  • Aahz at Mar 5, 2003 at 10:19 pm
    In article <slrnb6c040.gju.philh at cabalamat.uklinux.net>,
    phil hunt wrote:
    I disagree. I think Condorcet is the best voting system to use for
    this purpose. If the original vote had used it, there would be no
    need for a second one.
    And I disagree with this. From my POV, an expanded approval vote makes
    much more sense for this specific situation. (By "expanded", I mean
    that each item to be voted on can be marked as YES/NO/ABSTAIN.)

    While in some sense that would be less robust than Condorcet, the
    increase in simplicity and raw data would be well worth it. But since I
    abandoned running the vote in favor of dealing with PyCon, I don't get a
    say. ;-)
    --
    Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

    Register for PyCon now! http://www.python.org/pycon/reg.html
  • Erik Max Francis at Mar 5, 2003 at 11:07 pm

    Aahz wrote:

    And I disagree with this. From my POV, an expanded approval vote
    makes
    much more sense for this specific situation. (By "expanded", I mean
    that each item to be voted on can be marked as YES/NO/ABSTAIN.)

    While in some sense that would be less robust than Condorcet, the
    increase in simplicity and raw data would be well worth it.
    I agree -- at the very least there should be been some feedback on each
    and every form (including a "no change" option), whether
    affirmative/negative, or affirmative/indifferent/negative.

    I'm somewhat disappointed with the choice of voting procedures for such
    a highly contentious issue -- particularly when the discussion about the
    procedures seems to have had no impact -- but the official vote is the
    official vote and that's that.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ It's a man's world, and you men can have it.
    \__/ Katherine Anne Porter
    The laws list / http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/
    Laws, rules, principles, effects, paradoxes, etc. in physics.
  • Phil hunt at Mar 6, 2003 at 12:01 am

    On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:07:13 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
    Aahz wrote:
    And I disagree with this. From my POV, an expanded approval vote
    makes
    much more sense for this specific situation. (By "expanded", I mean
    that each item to be voted on can be marked as YES/NO/ABSTAIN.)

    While in some sense that would be less robust than Condorcet, the
    increase in simplicity and raw data would be well worth it.
    I agree -- at the very least there should be been some feedback on each
    and every form (including a "no change" option), whether
    affirmative/negative, or affirmative/indifferent/negative.
    The whole point of Condorcet is that it allows you to do this.
    I'm somewhat disappointed with the choice of voting procedures for such
    a highly contentious issue Ditto.
    -- particularly when the discussion about the
    procedures seems to have had no impact -- but the official vote is the
    official vote and that's that.
    The only official vote is the one the BDFL makes. It's one person
    one vote and he's the one person.

    --
    *|*| Philip Hunt <philh at cabalamat.org> |*|*|
    *|*| "Memes are a hoax; pass it on" |*|*|
  • Erik Max Francis at Mar 6, 2003 at 4:10 am

    phil hunt wrote:

    The only official vote is the one the BDFL makes. It's one person
    one vote and he's the one person.
    Yes, obviously. The official vote is the only one he endorses,
    implicitly or explicitly, as a part of the PEP. As I've clarified about
    four times by now.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ People are taught to be racists.
    \__/ Jose Abad
    Max Pandaemonium / http://www.maxpandaemonium.com/
    A sampling of Max Pandameonium's music.
  • Aahz at Mar 6, 2003 at 5:34 am
    In article <slrnb6d3ud.kle.philh at cabalamat.uklinux.net>,
    phil hunt wrote:
    On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:07:13 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
    Aahz wrote:
    And I disagree with this. From my POV, an expanded approval vote
    makes
    much more sense for this specific situation. (By "expanded", I mean
    that each item to be voted on can be marked as YES/NO/ABSTAIN.)

    While in some sense that would be less robust than Condorcet, the
    increase in simplicity and raw data would be well worth it.
    I agree -- at the very least there should be been some feedback on each
    and every form (including a "no change" option), whether
    affirmative/negative, or affirmative/indifferent/negative.
    The whole point of Condorcet is that it allows you to do this.
    Figuring out how to do a properly nuanced vote with Condorcet isn't
    trivial. The mechanism for voting is the same as STV, and I've seen too
    many people screw up in not understanding that the way to vote against
    something is to not rank it.
    --
    Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

    Register for PyCon now! http://www.python.org/pycon/reg.html
  • Phil hunt at Mar 6, 2003 at 3:45 pm

    On 6 Mar 2003 00:34:54 -0500, Aahz wrote:
    The whole point of Condorcet is that it allows you to do this.
    Figuring out how to do a properly nuanced vote with Condorcet isn't
    trivial.
    Isn't it? I reckon I could explain it in a paragraph:

    Rank all the items in order of preferences, marking a number
    against them, with "1" as your most prefered choice, "2" as your
    next most prefered choice, etc. If you give two or more items the
    same number, you are saying you like them as much as each other. Any
    items that you do not rank, are allocated preferences equal to each
    other and lower than all the items you have ranked."
    The mechanism for voting is the same as STV, and I've seen too
    many people screw up in not understanding that the way to vote against
    something is to not rank it.
    Or to rank everything else above it.

    --
    *|*| Philip Hunt <philh at cabalamat.org> |*|*|
    *|*| "Memes are a hoax; pass it on" |*|*|
  • Sik0fewl at Mar 5, 2003 at 10:47 pm

    phil hunt wrote:
    On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:48:41 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:

    Norman Petry wrote:

    This is NOT a ballot for the "official" PEP-308 vote being run by
    Raymond Hettinger. It is for a different vote that is intended to
    COMPLEMENT the results of the official vote, by using a different type
    of ballot, and a different method of tallying the results (Condorcet's
    Method), for those who may be interested. If enough people choose to
    participate, it will provide a high-quality source of additional
    information about the preferences of the Python community regarding
    the
    ternary operator.
    In my opinion this is a very bad idea. All a second concurrent vote is
    going to do is create more confusion about which vote is official,
    whether people have already voted, etc.

    I disagree. I think Condorcet is the best voting system to use for
    this purpose. If the original vote had used it, there would be no
    need for a second one.
    Personally I think there SHOULD be two votes. One to decide if a
    conditional expression should even be included in the first place. Then
    if the decision is yes, decide what operator to use.

    Well.. I suppose this could still be one "ballot," although it's two votes.

    ie:
    Yes/No/Neutral to PEP308
    and then your top X choices. X=3 seems fine and the could be weighted in
    the order they're listed (if you like).

    --
    My $0.02 CDN
    Ryan
  • Phil hunt at Mar 6, 2003 at 12:03 am

    On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:47:17 -0600, sik0fewl wrote:
    I disagree. I think Condorcet is the best voting system to use for
    this purpose. If the original vote had used it, there would be no
    need for a second one.
    Personally I think there SHOULD be two votes. One to decide if a
    conditional expression should even be included in the first place. Then
    if the decision is yes, decide what operator to use.
    I disagree.

    What if the choices are conditional-form-A and conditional-form-B?

    You like form-A, and prefer it to no change. You dislike form-B and
    would rather have no form than have it.

    With your suggested voting system, there is no way you can express
    your true preferences. But you can with Condorcet.


    --
    *|*| Philip Hunt <philh at cabalamat.org> |*|*|
    *|*| "Memes are a hoax; pass it on" |*|*|
  • Erik Max Francis at Mar 5, 2003 at 11:05 pm

    phil hunt wrote:

    I disagree. I think Condorcet is the best voting system to use for
    this purpose. If the original vote had used it, there would be no
    need for a second one.
    It's irrelevant what the best voting system would have been. The
    problem is that second, third, or sixth votes are not going to change
    anything. Only the first vote, however flawed one might feel it was,
    counts.

    If one wanted to do follow-up votes for one's own edification, it would
    have much been much more advisable to wait until the first vote was
    complete so that there would be no question of confusion or contention
    in an already highly contentious and fairly confused process.

    As it stands multiple concurrent votes -- where only one counts -- only
    leads to confusion. Even if you really think the one vote that counts
    was poorly done.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ It's a man's world, and you men can have it.
    \__/ Katherine Anne Porter
    The laws list / http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/
    Laws, rules, principles, effects, paradoxes, etc. in physics.
  • Thomas Wouters at Mar 6, 2003 at 12:00 am

    On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:05:11PM -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
    It's irrelevant what the best voting system would have been. The
    problem is that second, third, or sixth votes are not going to change
    anything. Only the first vote, however flawed one might feel it was,
    counts.
    Oh, please. Guido is not a mindless bureaucracy. If the first vote shows The
    Python Community shows massive acceptance of, say, 'C ->> a else? b' but
    other, 'unofficial' votes with the same order of responses clearly state
    otherwise, he isn't going to blindly go with the first vote. Or if he is,
    he's finally gone mad :)

    Lighten up, people. This isn't a matter of life and death. Worst case, it's
    a minor wart that gets added to Python. It's not like it's about electing
    the president of one of the most powerful countries in the world, please.

    Of-course-I-will-stop-using-Python-if-pep308-gets-added<0.5 wink>'ly y'rs,
    --
    Thomas Wouters <thomas at xs4all.net>

    Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
  • Phil hunt at Mar 6, 2003 at 12:04 am

    On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:05:11 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
    phil hunt wrote:
    I disagree. I think Condorcet is the best voting system to use for
    this purpose. If the original vote had used it, there would be no
    need for a second one.
    It's irrelevant what the best voting system would have been. The
    problem is that second, third, or sixth votes are not going to change
    anything. Only the first vote, however flawed one might feel it was,
    counts.
    Not under condorcet. Therefore voting system isan't irrelevant.


    --
    *|*| Philip Hunt <philh at cabalamat.org> |*|*|
    *|*| "Memes are a hoax; pass it on" |*|*|
  • Erik Max Francis at Mar 6, 2003 at 12:52 am

    Thomas Wouters wrote:

    Oh, please. Guido is not a mindless bureaucracy. If the first vote
    shows The
    Python Community shows massive acceptance of, say, 'C ->> a else? b'
    but
    other, 'unofficial' votes with the same order of responses clearly
    state
    otherwise, he isn't going to blindly go with the first vote. Or if he
    is,
    he's finally gone mad :)
    Of course he isn't. But there's only one vote that is mandated by the
    PEP, and there's only one vote that's being conducted with the (implicit
    or explicit) blessing of Guido himself.

    Additional votes running concurrently only muddy the waters and create
    confusion in an already muddy and confusing situation.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ The basis of optimism is sheer terror.
    \__/ Oscar Wilde
    HardScience.info / http://www.hardscience.info/
    The best hard science Web sites that the Web has to offer.
  • Norman Petry at Mar 6, 2003 at 1:31 am

    On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 18:52, Erik Max Francis wrote:

    Additional votes running concurrently only muddy the waters and create
    confusion in an already muddy and confusing situation.
    You (and only you) keep repeating this claim, which I regard as
    specious. I've already explained why.

    Clearly *you* know which vote is which, and I've detected no symptoms of
    "confusion" in the 60-odd responses I've received so far. Perhaps you
    should give the participants of comp.lang.python a bit more credit?

    --
    Norman Petry
  • Manuel M. Garcia at Mar 5, 2003 at 6:21 pm
    On 05 Mar 2003 00:18:30 -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
    (edit)
    Uh, I never even read about any nomination period _beginning_.
    Damn.

    I posted it to Usenet, and had thought that the message would be routed
    to the mailing list as well, but it seems that something went wrong. I
    now cannot find the message in the mailing list archives, or anywhere on
    the web! Maybe that's why the response to the nomination period wasn't
    very good (or maybe it's because people felt that 21 choices was more
    than enough...)

    The strange thing is that I DID receive one early response via email on
    March 3rd, so at least some people must have received this message:

    ANNOUNCE: Complementary VOTE re: PEP 308 Ternary Proposal, Sun, 02 Mar
    2003 17:44:33 -0600

    I can only suppose that the message was cancelled by someone, although I
    can't understand why (it was long - about 500 lines, but I've seen
    messages double that length. Is there some limit on message size that I
    violated? I'm a beginner when it comes to Usenet).
    Your message may have been canceled because it was misinterpreted as
    an attempt to disrupt the voting. Your intentions are obviously good
    (obvious to me), but every element of the PEP voting has led to heated
    discussions, and there is the possibility of someone trying to derail
    the vote. Your post should not have been deleted, but I would like to
    be charitable and think it that person who did it had good intentions
    too.

    I am not even sure who might have the power to delete the post, if
    anyone. If it was only a Usenet glitch, it would not be the first
    one.

    I agree with Phil Hunt that the Condorcet voting method should have
    been used on the "official" vote, if for no other reason than the
    Condorcet system has been studied and "debugged" by voting experts
    (and full analysis of all the special cases, etc.)

    A programmer who wasn't an expert shouldn't attempt to create his own
    ad-hoc encryption method. For the same reason, I would use an
    existing voting method before trying to come up with one of my own.

    Happily, all this is trumped by the fact that this vote is not
    decisive, and the person who will make the actual choice is also the
    person with the most at stake. Guido wouldn't let Python suffer a
    deficiency, or grow a wart.

    Manuel
  • Erik Max Francis at Mar 5, 2003 at 11:03 pm

    "Manuel M. Garcia" wrote:

    Your message may have been canceled because it was misinterpreted as
    an attempt to disrupt the voting. Your intentions are obviously good
    (obvious to me), but every element of the PEP voting has led to heated
    discussions, and there is the possibility of someone trying to derail
    the vote. Your post should not have been deleted, but I would like to
    be charitable and think it that person who did it had good intentions
    too.

    I am not even sure who might have the power to delete the post, if
    anyone. If it was only a Usenet glitch, it would not be the first
    one.
    I don't think there's any reason to think cancellation was involved. It
    strikes me as very sensationalistic to even bring it up without any
    evidence or inclination that it in fact occurred.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ It's a man's world, and you men can have it.
    \__/ Katherine Anne Porter
    The laws list / http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/
    Laws, rules, principles, effects, paradoxes, etc. in physics.
  • Norman Petry at Mar 6, 2003 at 12:12 am

    On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:03:14 +0000, Erik Max Francis wrote:

    "Manuel M. Garcia" wrote:
    Your message may have been canceled because it was misinterpreted as an
    attempt to disrupt the voting. Your intentions are obviously good
    (obvious to me), but every element of the PEP voting has led to heated
    discussions, and there is the possibility of someone trying to derail
    the vote. Your post should not have been deleted, but I would like to
    be charitable and think it that person who did it had good intentions
    too.

    I am not even sure who might have the power to delete the post, if
    anyone. If it was only a Usenet glitch, it would not be the first one.
    I don't think there's any reason to think cancellation was involved. It
    strikes me as very sensationalistic to even bring it up without any
    evidence or inclination that it in fact occurred.
    Well, I'm not sure what's going on. I re-posted the message I'd sent on
    Sunday, but this time sent it to the mailing-list, rather than via Usenet.
    This time, it does appear that my message showed up on the mailing list
    at least. You'll find it archived here:

    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-March/151680.html

    The mail-news gateway should be forwarding this, shouldn't it? From what
    I can tell, this message still hasn't shown up on comp.lang.python, and I
    sent it several hours ago. I would like to believe that it is getting
    dropped because it is too long (~ 400-500 lines), except that there are
    currently 4-5 messages on comp.lang.python that are twice that length, and
    I've seen some with over 1200 lines.

    Any better theories about what's happening here would be appreciated.

    --
    Norman Petry
  • Thomas Wouters at Mar 6, 2003 at 12:32 am

    On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:12:33PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:

    Any better theories about what's happening here would be appreciated.
    USENET sucks, almost as bad as SMTP, if you expect reliable and reliably
    reproduceable behaviour. It doesn't work that way. Even if the mail->news
    gateway works, there are many hops involved in delivering the message to any
    given NNTP server, and any one of them can go wrong. Or they can take a
    little longer than expected.

    But I don't read the newsgroup, I read the list. Maybe a few
    newsgroup-readers can see if they got either message. I definately saw the
    second.

    --
    Thomas Wouters <thomas at xs4all.net>

    Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
  • Norman Petry at Mar 6, 2003 at 12:42 am

    On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 18:32, Thomas Wouters wrote:
    On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 06:12:33PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:

    Any better theories about what's happening here would be appreciated.
    USENET sucks, almost as bad as SMTP, if you expect reliable and reliably
    reproduceable behaviour. It doesn't work that way. Even if the mail->news
    gateway works, there are many hops involved in delivering the message to any
    given NNTP server, and any one of them can go wrong. Or they can take a
    little longer than expected.
    That might be it. Perhaps it will show up on my news server later today
    or tomorrow. The odd thing is that all of the (relatively) short
    messages I've sent were transferred quickly and reliably, whether I
    posted them to the list, or to comp.lang.python.
    But I don't read the newsgroup, I read the list. Maybe a few
    newsgroup-readers can see if they got either message. I definately saw the
    second.
    I'd appreciate that. I really don't want to have to send out my message
    a paragraph at a time, just so people on comp.lang.python can read it
    :-/

    --
    Norm Petry
  • Norman Petry at Mar 6, 2003 at 1:00 am

    On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 15:50:31 +0000, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

    Norman Petry fed this fish to the penguins on Tuesday 04 March 2003
    03:56 pm:

    SUBMITTING YOUR BALLOT

    You may vote by submitting your email ballot to:

    ------------------
    pepvote at canada.com
    ------------------
    Too bad you couldn't rig the post so that /was/ the email
    address used
    for a "reply by mail"
    You're right -- I should have done that. If there's a next time, I'll
    remember to do it.

    --
    Norm Petry

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppython-list @
categoriespython
postedMar 4, '03 at 11:56p
activeMar 6, '03 at 3:45p
posts25
users8
websitepython.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase