[RFC] tweak to voting rules

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kent Gibson wrote:
> 
> 
> Aaron Bentley wrote:
>>> I think we need to differentiate between two reasons for voting
>>> against a patch: 1. This implementation needs work before we can
>>> accept it. 2. This patch is a bad idea, and we should never accept
>>> it, even if well-implemented.
>>>
>>> So I propose we change things slightly: -1 : patch needs work -2 :
>>> patch is a bad idea
> 
> That isn't a slight change - that is a complete redefinition of -1.

- -1 currently means "I don't want this to go in".  This changes it to "I
don't want this to go in because the implementation is lacking".

If you look at the vetoed requests, only two of them were rejected on
the grounds that they were bad ideas.  Most of the rejections were due
to implementation issues or because an email was incorrectly flagged as
a merge request.
> I agree we need to provide more granularity in the voting scheme, but
> I'd rather a system that is backwardly compatible with the existing
> scheme, and is extensible.
> 
> I don't see any need for the votes to be integers.
> Why not just use decimal votes such as one of 0.1, 0.5 or 0.9 (and a
> negative equivalent)?
> I've seen such votes in use before, why not just formalise them?

That would be okay, too.

> And consider what would happen if next month you want to add another
> level of granularity to your proposal.  Ouch.

I think we can easily hit diminishing returns by trying to map every
opinion directly to a vote.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFbuVM0F+nu1YWqI0RAkYFAJwMYqtPt3fx2a3gN2eoWq9+k1S1LACdH1X6
bugvJRSowm1zxUHa+H1SgUo=
=yyL1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----