[python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Victor Stinner]

> > I see that the PEP 8001 is still being updated (voting method). Should
> > we still expect new changes before the vote starts?
>
> I don't detect any groundswell of opposition anymore now that the
> voting method changed.

I'm unhappy with the "[] Further discussion" choice. We have a
governance crisis. Many people would like to see it resolved as soon
as possible, I don't see the ability to vote for "[] Further
discussion" as a way to resolve this crisis.

There are 6 proposed governance PEPs (maybe 7? ;-)). I don't expect
that everybody will agree on everything in a PEP, but everybody should
be at least able to order them to vote, no? If no, well, maybe don't
vote?


Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 04:24, Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> a écrit :
> Nevertheless, I probably won't vote - I object to public ballots on
> principle.

I'm not surprised that someone doesn't like one part of the PEP 8001.
But well, we need to move on and take a decision...


> "Pure Condorcet" is close to trivial to tally:  there is a Condorcet
> winner, or there isn't.  I wouldn't even bother to write code to
> figure it out.  For example, write a simple script to convert each
> ballot to a single line for the following web page, paste the ballots
> into the text box, and click the "Calculate all winners" button:
>
>     https://www.cse.wustl.edu/~legrand/rbvote/calc.html

Yes, I'm asking for such script. I didn't say that it would be overcomplicated.

The PEP 8001 is not trivial, it expects a specific format:

**DO NOT LEAVE ANY BRACKETS BLANK!**
**DO NOT REPEAT A RANKING/NUMBER!**

Maybe it would help to have a script to validate my own vote? (Also
ensure that all choices are present?)

> The result page will tell you whether or not a Condorcet winner
> exists.  As a bonus, it will also tell you who the winner would be
> under 15 different ranked-ballot scoring methods.  Which may be handy
> to know in the unlikely case there isn't a Condorcet winner.  For
> example, if "Schulze" and "Hare" (which was called "IRV" in the
> previous PEP iteration) both pick the same winner then, I bet most
> people would say "ah, good enough".

Hum, it seems like you are unhappy with the chosen voting method.
Again, we have to move on and take a decision. We cannot discuss
voting methods forever, and there is no perfect voting methods. Only
tradeoffs. I looked at the length of the discussion, and I understood
that everybody had the opportunity to express their opinion, and the
discussion gone deeply in voting methods, as Carol, I was impressed by
the level of the discussion :-)

Victor