[ERR5RS] Wiki voting mechanisms

[Lynn Winebarger]

On 9/13/07, Victor Rodriguez <victorr at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/13/07, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Will asked a while back about voting mechanisms in the wiki software
> > (maybe on the Junta list).  Are there any?
> >     Before doing the detailed design work, we should start determining
> > the kinds of constructs the library mechanism should support.  If we
> > have agreement on these, the technical details will be easier to agree
> > on.  Another issue:  what is the critical mass for taking the votes as
> > meaningful?
>
> Why do you want to vote?  I do not think voting is a good idea, since
> "the most popular" is not always "the best".  A better approach would
> be to argue issues, and appoint someone to make a decision for those
> times when there is no consensus.

   Indeed, one of themes of the scheme-punks site as a whole is a
belief that design by committee is generally doomed.   David has
generously made space available for efforts by individuals.
    This particular effort, though, is different.  See
http://scheme-punks.org/wiki/index.php?title=ERR5RS:Charter
     The basic purpose of this effort (as I understand it) is to
develop a standard which is reasonably consistent with the R5RS (and
its ethos) that will increase the ability of Scheme programmers to
share code between them and their chosen implementations.  That means
the result should be conservative enough that most implementors will
be willing to adopt it, without being so conservative as to be
useless.
     The particular reasons I think wiki voting could be useful (now
that I am getting used to wiki):
    1.  Voting helps force decision making on specific issues.
    2.  Votes would not be anonymous.
    3.  Votes on the wiki could be explicitly linked to arguments for
or against.
    4.  Voting + reasons could lead us to decide whether there is room
for useful compromise or if something is best left undefined.
Inconclusive votes can be redone if progress to a compromise is made.

   I don't know much about the technology, but it seems we could make
voting more useful than just a popularity contest.

   As for benevolent dictators:  I am willing to do some community
service to further the goals in the charter.  If I didn't think the
goals could be accomplished with those parameters, I wouldn't waste my
time on it, nor would I waste my or other's time just to be an
obstructionist.  I am not particularly interested in helping a
benevolent dictator achieve his or her vision.

Lynn