FAQ
The PEP 308 vote is summarized at:
http://tinyurl.com/763f

Here are some of the highlights:

* 518 votes were received. Of these, 82 used a RejectAll
ballot and 436 used the original ballot.

* 363 had a preferred syntax they found acceptable while
155 found no acceptable syntax.

* For the second ranked syntax, the ratio dropped to
286:231 in favor of a change. This means that 77
people found only one syntax to be acceptable.

* For the third ranked syntax, the ratio dropped to
202:312. This indicates that over half of the voters
would prefer no change if they can't have one of
their first two choices.

* The highest ranked constructs were:

235 for (if C: x else: y)
206 for C ? x : y

* The 235 breaks down to 177 accepting and 58 rejecting.
If the RejectAll votes are attributed entirely to that
syntax, the ratio becomes 177 favoring to 140 opposing.

* The individual votes were highly expressive and are
worth reviewing:

http://tinyurl.com/75z2
http://tinyurl.com/75z3

* The write-in votes had more accepts than rejects but
had no clustering of syntax preferences.

* The downfall of all voting systems is not in the data
collection, rather it is in the way the rankings are
combined. I avoid this issue by not declaring a
winner. Instead, Guido is being given a straight
tally and a copy of all of the individual votes.
This works especially well because his vote outweighs
all of the others.

* Though the results leans toward accepting the PEP as
proposed, it is not decisive. Some of the no-change
votes included strong pleas. This will certainly be
a consideration.

* There were three or four ballots received after this
summary was prepared but before it was posted. I'll
include them for Guido in a separate email. Please
stop sending in new votes.

Search Discussions

  • Raymond Hettinger at Mar 10, 2003 at 11:29 pm
    The PEP 308 vote is summarized at:
    http://tinyurl.com/763f

    Here are some of the highlights:

    * 518 votes were received. Of these, 82 used a RejectAll
    ballot and 436 used the original ballot.

    * 363 had a preferred syntax they found acceptable while
    155 found no acceptable syntax.

    * For the second ranked syntax, the ratio dropped to
    286:231 in favor of a change. This means that 77
    people found only one syntax to be acceptable.

    * For the third ranked syntax, the ratio dropped to
    202:312. This indicates that over half of the voters
    would prefer no change if they can't have one of
    their first two choices.

    * The highest ranked constructs were:

    235 for (if C: x else: y)
    206 for C ? x : y

    * The 235 breaks down to 177 accepting and 58 rejecting.
    If the RejectAll votes are attributed entirely to that
    syntax, the ratio becomes 177 favoring to 140 opposing.

    * The individual votes were highly expressive and are
    worth reviewing:

    http://tinyurl.com/75z2
    http://tinyurl.com/75z3

    * The write-in votes had more accepts than rejects but
    had no clustering of syntax preferences.

    * The downfall of all voting systems is not in the data
    collection, rather it is in the way the rankings are
    combined. I avoid this issue by not declaring a
    winner. Instead, Guido is being given a straight
    tally and a copy of all of the individual votes.
    This works especially well because his vote outweighs
    all of the others.

    * Though the results lean towards accepting the PEP as
    proposed, it is not decisive. Some of the no-change
    votes included strong pleas. This will certainly be
    a consideration.

    * There were three or four ballots received after this
    summary was prepared but before it was posted. I'll
    include them for Guido in a separate email. Please
    stop sending in new votes.



    Raymond Hettinger
  • Tim Hochberg at Mar 11, 2003 at 4:51 am

    Raymond Hettinger wrote:
    The PEP 308 vote is summarized at:
    http://tinyurl.com/763f
    [Snip]

    First off, Raymond, thanks for going to the work of putting together
    this vote.

    * The highest ranked constructs were:

    235 for (if C: x else: y)
    206 for C ? x : y

    * The 235 breaks down to 177 accepting and 58 rejecting.
    If the RejectAll votes are attributed entirely to that
    syntax, the ratio becomes 177 favoring to 140 opposing.
    This certainly isn't how I would interpret this. Options that I didn't
    rank I considered as rejected. I suppose that might be arguable in the
    case where someone ranked three options and accepted all three: in that
    case an argument could be made that they might have accepted some other
    syntaxes given the opportunity, but in cases where at least one syntax
    was rejected, and for example, syntax C was not ranked I would consider
    it rejected.

    So, my initial reading of this, without crunching the numbers to get the
    fuzzy votes is that option C was closer to 177 accepting and 341 rejecting.

    Alternatively, I think the fuzzy votes come to ~100, so if we just throw
    those out, the most accurate thing I can think of given the constraints
    of the vote, one has 177 accepting to 241 rejecting.

    I can't recall the details for the complimentary vote, but perhaps the
    two weren't so far off after all.

    [SNIP]
    * Though the results lean towards accepting the PEP as
    proposed, it is not decisive. Some of the no-change
    votes included strong pleas. This will certainly be
    a consideration.
    [SNIP]

    Again, I'd disagree. The results seems to slightly leaning toward some
    ternary syntax, but no change seems to be preferred almost 2:1 (or 1.5:1
    if you toss the fuzzy votes) over any particular syntax. I certainly
    wouldn't characterize that as leaning towards accepting the PEP as proposed.

    Regards,

    -tim
  • Samuele Pedroni at Mar 11, 2003 at 10:29 am
    "Tim Hochberg" <tim.hochberg at ieee.org> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:aXdba.146667$XB3.20041 at news1.west.cox.net...
    Raymond Hettinger wrote:
    The PEP 308 vote is summarized at:
    http://tinyurl.com/763f
    [Snip]

    First off, Raymond, thanks for going to the work of putting together
    this vote.

    * The highest ranked constructs were:

    235 for (if C: x else: y)
    206 for C ? x : y

    * The 235 breaks down to 177 accepting and 58 rejecting.
    If the RejectAll votes are attributed entirely to that
    syntax, the ratio becomes 177 favoring to 140 opposing.
    This certainly isn't how I would interpret this. Options that I didn't
    rank I considered as rejected. I suppose that might be arguable in the
    case where someone ranked three options and accepted all three: in that
    case an argument could be made that they might have accepted some other
    syntaxes given the opportunity, but in cases where at least one syntax
    was rejected, and for example, syntax C was not ranked I would consider
    it rejected.
    I agree wholeheartedly, if that's not the interpretation that the vote
    should receive, then the vote was BIASED.
  • Stephen Horne at Mar 11, 2003 at 11:46 am

    On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:29:16 +0100, "Samuele Pedroni" wrote:

    I agree wholeheartedly, if that's not the interpretation that the vote
    should receive, then the vote was BIASED.
    I think you may be overreacting. All the votes are available. If you
    are worried about the totalling, list what you think the totals should
    be and why. If your version has merit, I'm sure it will get noticed.

    It's one of the benefits of an open vote.
  • Stephen Horne at Mar 11, 2003 at 11:39 am

    On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:51:18 GMT, Tim Hochberg wrote:
    Again, I'd disagree. The results seems to slightly leaning toward some
    ternary syntax, but no change seems to be preferred almost 2:1 (or 1.5:1
    if you toss the fuzzy votes) over any particular syntax. I certainly
    wouldn't characterize that as leaning towards accepting the PEP as proposed.
    Over any *particular* syntax, yes - Raymonds choice of words may have
    been imprecise. However...

    1. Overall, more people are pro-some-change than against-any-change.

    2. Of those who are pro-some-change, the current PEP308 syntax seems
    to be the first choice overall.

    It seems that the vote has the worst possible type of outcome - it
    could be interpreted as favoring either factions opinion. Either it
    supports no change (as the no-change vote is more popular than any
    single syntax) or it supports making a change (as, if the particular
    syntax is considered a less important detail, the total votes for
    change outweigh the total votes against).

    Thankfully, we have a BDFL. The alternative might have involved
    suicide bombers :-(
  • Thomas Wouters at Mar 11, 2003 at 11:53 am

    On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:39:03AM +0000, Stephen Horne wrote:

    Thankfully, we have a BDFL. The alternative might have involved
    suicide bombers :-(
    As opposed to just suicides, when BDFL makes his decision (whichever way
    that is ?) :-P

    --
    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 11, 2003 at 10:33 pm

    Stephen Horne wrote:

    It seems that the vote has the worst possible type of outcome - it
    could be interpreted as favoring either factions opinion. Either it
    supports no change (as the no-change vote is more popular than any
    single syntax) or it supports making a change (as, if the particular
    syntax is considered a less important detail, the total votes for
    change outweigh the total votes against).
    Given the amount of discussion that took place, I pretty much expected a
    contentious vote. Obviously, no matter what happened with the vote, it
    was Guido's final decision, but this just shows that there's enough
    support to favor pretty much any position he wishes to take.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.
    \__/ Oscar Wilde
    Bosskey.net: Quake III Arena / http://www.bosskey.net/q3a/
    A personal guide to Quake III Arena.
  • Stephen Horne at Mar 11, 2003 at 2:56 am

    On 10 Mar 2003 12:11:50 -0800, pep308vote at hotmail.com (Raymond Hettinger) wrote:

    * 363 had a preferred syntax they found acceptable while
    155 found no acceptable syntax.
    Funny that this differs so much from the complimentary vote. Obviously
    fewer people voted on that, but I'm wondering if there was some
    self-selection biassing process going on in one or both votes (e.g.
    maybe the no-change crowd care more on average, and were therefore
    more willing to put time into a second vote).

    Any thoughts?
  • Erik Max Francis at Mar 11, 2003 at 3:15 am

    Stephen Horne wrote:

    Funny that this differs so much from the complimentary vote. Obviously
    fewer people voted on that, but I'm wondering if there was some
    self-selection biassing process going on in one or both votes (e.g.
    maybe the no-change crowd care more on average, and were therefore
    more willing to put time into a second vote).

    Any thoughts?
    I suspect there is a strong selection effect taking place here; I know I
    didn't bother voting on the unofficial vote. It may well that people
    who were in favor of the PEP didn't bother voting in the second one
    simply because they felt that they had invested enough time selecting
    their favored forms in the first vote that it wasn't worth the effort to
    repeat it again, whereas more people against the PEP were willing to
    vote again because it required little effort and they felt so strongly.

    Who knows? But I'll bet some wise guy's solution to the discrepancy
    will be to suggest another vote.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ Oh, what lies there are in kisses.
    \__/ Heinrich Heine
    Polly Wanna Cracka? / http://www.pollywannacracka.com/
    The Internet resource for interracial relationships.
  • Mike C. Fletcher at Mar 11, 2003 at 3:59 am
    I'd guess that many people who weren't interested in debating the issue
    (and quite probably didn't want the "feature") didn't realise the
    official vote was going on. I found out it had already started by
    accidentally clicking on a message in the later thread that described
    how to do an all-no vote (which luckily is what I wanted). (I had, like
    most people, just been binning the hundreds of messages with Pep 308 in
    the title, and never noticed the messages describing voting procedure in
    that flurry).

    The "complementary" vote thread had the advantage of coming somewhat
    later, and really obviously describing an active/in-process vote. It
    also had the advantage of not having a huge "what type of vote shall we
    use" thread surrounding it's root post ;) . Of course, the... ahem...
    involved voting process kept me from actually _voting_ in it ;) .

    Oh well, hopefully Guido will reveal that the whole Pep 308 thing was
    one of his wonderful April Fools tricks ;) . (Though it's not even close
    to the whole Parrot thing as of yet. (There are still naive people who
    believe there's a "Parrot Virtual Machine" going to come out for Python
    and Perl (I think the people who are keeping that alive after all this
    time are just sick ;) ))).

    If not we'll have to foment another revolution :) ;) ,
    Mike

    Erik Max Francis wrote:
    Stephen Horne wrote:


    Funny that this differs so much from the complimentary vote. Obviously
    fewer people voted on that, but I'm wondering if there was some
    self-selection biassing process going on in one or both votes (e.g.
    maybe the no-change crowd care more on average, and were therefore
    more willing to put time into a second vote).

    Any thoughts?
    I suspect there is a strong selection effect taking place here; I know I
    didn't bother voting on the unofficial vote. It may well that people
    who were in favor of the PEP didn't bother voting in the second one
    simply because they felt that they had invested enough time selecting
    their favored forms in the first vote that it wasn't worth the effort to
    repeat it again, whereas more people against the PEP were willing to
    vote again because it required little effort and they felt so strongly.

    Who knows? But I'll bet some wise guy's solution to the discrepancy
    will be to suggest another vote.
    _______________________________________
    Mike C. Fletcher
    Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
    http://members.rogers.com/mcfletch/
  • Stephen Horne at Mar 11, 2003 at 12:44 pm

    On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 01:24:17 -0800, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

    Whereas I felt the so-called official vote mechanism -- wherein
    listing any option at all, even if with "reject" was still a favorable
    vote for that option -- was so confusing it wasn't worth my time to
    figure out.
    I saw that as 'this is worse than no change, but not as bad as the
    alternatives'.
  • Peter Hansen at Mar 11, 2003 at 1:26 pm

    "Mike C. Fletcher" wrote:
    If not we'll have to foment another revolution :) ;) ,
    [voice of Homer Simpson] Mmmmm... fomentation...

    -Peter
  • Erik Max Francis at Mar 11, 2003 at 3:16 am

    Dave Brueck wrote:
    On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Raymond Hettinger wrote:

    Some of the no-change votes included strong pleas. This will
    certainly be a consideration.
    Why?
    Good question. Given in the early PEP threads both sides made their
    pleas quite strongly, I don't think continued strength in a plea should
    carry much weight. Both sides (both extreme ends, anyway) felt
    strongly. It probably should be left at that.

    --
    Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
    / \ Oh, what lies there are in kisses.
    \__/ Heinrich Heine
    Polly Wanna Cracka? / http://www.pollywannacracka.com/
    The Internet resource for interracial relationships.
  • Dave Brueck at Mar 11, 2003 at 3:46 am

    On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Raymond Hettinger wrote:

    The PEP 308 vote is summarized at:
    http://tinyurl.com/763f
    Thanks for going to all the trouble Raymond!
    Some of the no-change votes included strong pleas. This will
    certainly be a consideration.
    Why?

    Thanks again,
    -Dave

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppython-list @
categoriespython
postedMar 10, '03 at 8:11p
activeMar 11, '03 at 10:33p
posts15
users9
websitepython.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase