[csw-maintainers] amendments and issues with recent prop

[Jonathan Craig]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:12 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert at opencsw.org> wrote:

>
> if you want to have a fair result even if you have similar possibilities in
> the selection, one might consider the debian method of
> voting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloneproof_Schwartz_Sequential_Dropping.
> otherwise opencsw will be called thunderbay, not lakehead :)
> rupert.

That is an elegant solution when choosing amongst a group of like
items.  If we were determining the color of our logo I would be all
for it.  The major issue would be timely implementation.  We use
Ballotbin to hold our elections as its controlled by a third party and
is therefore subject to less concern of rigging.  A quick look at the
software list referenced in the wikipedia site didn't immediately turn
up a third party with the same capability.  Instead its offered as
software one may implement, and this could raise concerns on some
peoples part.

Additionally, if you accept that a choice to automate the release
process and the use of peer reviews as being two different subjects,
then there is no need to tie the choices together.  Each choice stands
on its own and can be determined separately without interference.
Further, the peer review process is wholly defined by a collection of
complaints and what-ifs and is not at the stage of being voted upon.
The release process on the other hand has been posted for everyone to
review, amendments / suggestions have been requested and considered.
Is there some reason I'm not understanding that the two items must be
determined together?

At this point I can see no reason the release proposal would impede
the development of a review proposal.  However, the release process
will suffer last minute delays if it waits for the review process to
be defined.