ternary operator vote

[James J. Besemer]

Aahz wrote:
> In article <mailman.1044913129.2172.python-list at python.org>,
> James J. Besemer <jb at cascade-sys.com> wrote:
> 
>>This PEP faces an uphill battle all the way.  We have already heard motions 
>>to vote soon -- before even enumerating the many alternatives, let alone 
>>culling the list.  
> 
> 
> You'll notice that I've been putting off people who want a quick vote.

That's definitely a step in the right direction.

However, please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it YOU who suggested the 
up or down vote on the concept before working out a preferred alternative?

Assuming so, I think would be extremely pejorative to the outcome.  And to me 
that's another sign that somebody else should be in charge of the voting.

If I'm mistaken and that's NOT the course you've proposed, then I apologize, 
though I still think a proponent should be in charge.

Perhaps it's time to form a sub-committee to hammer out a single proposal and 
bring that back to the group, after spending however long it takes.

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