Re: [Scheme-reports] [scheme-reports-wg1] Proposed revision of WG2's charter

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

Arthur A. Gleckler scripsit:

> New: When the working group votes on a proposal, a simple majority of
> the legal votes cast (ignoring abstentions) shall determine the vote.
> 
> I've found the ranked voting system used for WG1 to be a terrific way to
> operate because it allows each of us to propose exactly what we like
> without fear of splitting the vote.  I'd love to see a system like that
> used.

Absolutely.  I suspect however that there will typically be only one
proposal, the version that made it through the SRFI process.  Sometimes,
as with numeric vectors, there are multiple SRFI (or R6RS) versions,
though.

Here's my new wording:

    When the working group votes yes or no on a proposal, a simple
    majority of the legal votes cast (ignoring abstentions) shall
    determine the vote.  A process similar to the ranked-pairs
    voting used by working group 1 may be used in the case of multiple
    competing proposals.

Does that satisfy your concerns?

-- 
Andrew Watt on Microsoft:                       John Cowan
Never in the field of human computing           cowan@x
has so much been paid by so many                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to so few! (pace Winston Churchill)

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports