std.parallelism: Request for Review [Summary of discussion]

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, March 04, 2011 11:12:00 Russel Winder wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 10:10 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> [ . . . ]
> 
> > We've never really discussed that. Thus far, anyone who posted on the
> > newsgroup could vote. Now, if there were a bunch of votes from unknown
> > folks and that definitely shifted the vote, then I would fully expect
> > those votes to be thrown out or the vote redone or whatnot (if nothing
> > else, they could be sock puppets). But it's not like we've selected a
> > list of people and said that they were the ones allowed to vote. The few
> > times that we've voted on including something in Phobos thus far, it
> > hasn't been an issue.
> 
> Works for me.  It's much nicer to have an informal system that works --
> as long as it is possible to tell when the system is being subverted.
> 
> Presumably this is a four-state vote:
> 
> 	+1 approve
> 	0 cannot decide
> 	-1 disapprove
> 	-- no opinion
> 
> Anyone not emailing is deemed to have cast a -- vote all of which are
> automatically discarded.  Votes such as +100 will presumably be
> renormalized to +1.

All you really do is vote whether you want it in Phobos or not. The total number 
of votes/voters is then taken, and the majority decides. If the majority vote 
for inclusion, then it's included. If the majority vote for it not to be 
included, then it's not included. There's no weighting of votes or point system 
or whatnot.

- Jonathan M Davis