ternary operator vote

[James J. Besemer]

Aahz wrote:

> If I do hold a vote, there will be a specific format required.  Do not
> send votes to me until you see a formal Call For Votes (which would be
> published on comp.lang.python.announce).  Any votes sent now will be
> discarded.

I would humbly suggest that somebody other than Aahz control the voting.

I don't know Aahz.  I have no reason to doubt his integrity or expect him to 
cheat.  Nevertheless, he has indicated considerable hostility towards the 
propsoal and this strikes me as inconsistent with the role.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it TRADITIONAL for a PROPONENT of a PEP 
lead the discussion, revise the PEP accordingly and call for a vote?  There 
are several members qualified to lead this effort.  Andrew Koenig stands out 
as one; at least his diligence to date indicates he may have the time for it.

Seems to me we're at a point where the PEP should be revised to incorporate 
what we've learned thus far.  I think there are a number of points to be 
added, if only additional dead ends.

The vote itself I presume would be public and thus there would be no issue re 
counting, auditing, etc.

Regards

--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