ternary operator vote

[James J. Besemer]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> In article <mailman.1044913129.2172.python-list at python.org>, James J. Besemer wrote:
> 
> 
>>It's not about trust.  It's about avoiding the proverbial appearance of 
>>impropriety.  Psychological experiments have shown that bias can affect a 
>>person's decision making even though the person is not conscious of the 
>>influence.  I think the vote should be controlled by a proponent of the PEP, 
>>not an opponent.
> 
> 
> How somebody biased for the PEP any less "improprietary" than
> sombebody biased against it?

I think "appearance" is the operative word.

Clearly this is an emotional issue.

If the PEP is defeated and a known opponent controled the voting (or more 
importantly the review process) then there's an opportunity for lasting 
animosity.  Some will always wonder if something didn't take place behind the 
scenes to affect the outcome.

If the PEP is defeated after being led by a known proponent, then there's 
much less liklihood of hurt feelings.  It's easier to assume the proponent 
did everything he could and simply did not succeed.

Too, I am new at this and a lot of what I know about the process I take from 
reading PEP-1.  There, the explicit assumption seems to be that a proponent 
leads the proposal through the process.  This makes more sense to me than 
what we're presently doing.

--jb


-- 
James J. Besemer		503-280-0838 voice
2727 NE Skidmore St.		503-280-0375 fax
Portland, Oregon 97211-6557	mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com
				http://cascade-sys.com