[r6rs-discuss] voting process
William D Clinger
will at ccs.neu.edu
Sat Nov 1 19:29:59 EDT 2008
Alan Bawden quoting Elf:
> 3) I do _NOT_ think that all registered voters for r6 should be
> automatically registered for the Steering Committee vote. This is a
> separate issue with a somewhat different target audience.
> I can see that a case could be made for that. But I also find it hard to
> imagine why somebody we registered to vote on ratifying R6RS would be
> turned down to vote for a new Steering Committee.
> I guess I'd be interested in hearing other opinions about this.
The appearance of fairness actually matters here. If you
use a voting process that appears to favor the R6 electorate,
then you will appear to confirm the already-likely impression
that this election matters only to those who care about the
language described by the R6RS. You should instead be making
every attempt to involve members of the Scheme community who
care about the future of Scheme, even if they do *not* care
about the R6RS.
For example, the R6 vote created an appearance of unfairness
by requiring those who voted against ratification to justify
their vote, but imposed no such requirement on those who
voted in favor of ratification. If you aren't careful about
the process you use for this vote, then you will reinforce
that existing impression of unfairness instead of undoing it.
I think you should allow same-day, same-message registration,
and should require *everyone* to include their little bio
with their vote. That would not inconvenience those who
registered for the R6 vote, since they could just recycle
the same bio they submitted for the R6 vote, but it would go
some distance toward re-establishing an appearance of fairness.
More information about the r6rs-discuss