[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall we create a ballot for PROPERTIES value definition proposals?

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall we create a ballot for PROPERTIES value definition proposals?

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello everyone,

Given the vast number of possible choices to consider when defining
new PROPERTIES values [1], perhaps we should create a ballot and
hold a vote on definitions that people have submitted. I suppose
that voters would be able to vote yes or no on each proposed
property definition and they would also be able to write in one or
more alternative names for the definition. I don't know what the
best method(s) to carry out a vote like this would be. Does anybody
have any suggestions?

Thanks,
Zac

[1]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_e145fc04e907de72e30d88285afb134c.xml
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkiZhOUACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPuhQCfYkF8KM9TchrnoveUTvm5oDy6
n9UAoMfh6PqBixBYokm64DRN9oPqyiwQ
=iVaC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall we create a ballot for PROPERTIES value definition proposals?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 706 bytes --]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:03:02 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Given the vast number of possible choices to consider when defining
> new PROPERTIES values [1], perhaps we should create a ballot and
> hold a vote on definitions that people have submitted. I suppose
> that voters would be able to vote yes or no on each proposed
> property definition and they would also be able to write in one or
> more alternative names for the definition. I don't know what the
> best method(s) to carry out a vote like this would be. Does anybody
> have any suggestions?

What's wrong with just discussing it until we agree? Why do you think a
compromise is necessary?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall we create a ballot for PROPERTIES value definition proposals?

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> What's wrong with just discussing it until we agree? Why do you think a
> compromise is necessary?

I think voting might be an interesting approach. We'll see if anyone
else is interested. I don't know yet. :)

Zac

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkiZi3IACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPOhwCghN4mT7tHfS/FBdwP5Cpxm8ak
pWsAoMg6Rw6liGyZRYyai6Vamv/zMSrP
=o48k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Shall we create a ballot for PROPERTIES value definition proposals?

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 885 bytes --]

Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> said:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Given the vast number of possible choices to consider when defining
> new PROPERTIES values [1], perhaps we should create a ballot and
> hold a vote on definitions that people have submitted. I suppose
> that voters would be able to vote yes or no on each proposed
> property definition and they would also be able to write in one or
> more alternative names for the definition. I don't know what the
> best method(s) to carry out a vote like this would be. Does anybody
> have any suggestions?

have the council sign of whatever compromise looks like it made it way 
through.
the current process seems to work very well, me thinks.

thanks for your effort, BTW.

best regards
Thilo

>
> Thanks,
> Zac
>
> [1]
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_e145fc04e907de72e30d88285afb1
>34c.xml



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Shall we create a ballot for PROPERTIES value definition proposals?

[Steve Long]

Zac Medico wrote:

> Given the vast number of possible choices to consider when defining
> new PROPERTIES values [1], perhaps we should create a ballot and
> hold a vote on definitions that people have submitted. I suppose
> that voters would be able to vote yes or no on each proposed
> property definition and they would also be able to write in one or
> more alternative names for the definition.

That makes a lot of sense, although I'm not sure you need to get consensus
on which properties should be introduced: if the pm teams all agree a flag
is needed, it should be in, imo. Names would be better to throw out for
wider consensus, due to the i18n and the fact that pm users will need to
type them in..

> I don't know what the 
> best method(s) to carry out a vote like this would be. Does anybody
> have any suggestions?
>
How about a poll in "portage & programming" for each flag under
consideration, with options for names being considered?

You could add a "Some other name which I will suggest in a post" option.
"No this flag is a bad idea" should come from the dev ml imo, with the
reasons explained and discussed fully.