Voting for PEP 308

[Erik Max Francis]

Paul Moore wrote:

> The point about requiring a supermajority is that it leaves a gap in
> which the procedure returns an "undecided" answer.
> 
> I think that any voting procedure on this topic which doesn't allow
> for an "undecided" result is misleading at best, dishonest at worst.

The original process as stated required a supermajority to prevent a
no-confidence vote from failing.  Let's say it was even the lower 2/3
supermajority; if (say) 62% of the responders voted in favor of a
conditional operator and 38% voted opposed to it, the vote would "fail"
but the community would clearly be left in an undecided state.

I'm just saying talking about the precise figure required to pass is
substituting one's judgement for the BDFL.  Take the vote, give him the
figure.  Let him take it from there.

After all, if there were clearly a tiny minority that wanted the
operator, then that's good reason to declare by fiat that it will never
be in the language.  If a huge majority want it, then similarly it's
clear that it probably should be in the language.

If you're around the 50-50 range (which I suspect we probably will be),
then there's active contention in the community and so it'll be a
judgement call.

-- 
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Life is an effort that deserves a better cause.
\__/ Karl Kraus
    Alcyone Systems / http://www.alcyone.com/
 Alcyone Systems, San Jose, California.