Re: Node.js and it's future in debian
On 2012-05-02 14:49:09 +0200 (+0200), Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> On the other hand, if renaming both of them is the only possible
> outcome if both parties cannot agree, it makes it more likely both
> sides will actually be willing to discuss the matter, instead of
> just issuing demands, hoping the other side will either give up or
> will be overruled by the TC at the end.
It seems to me to be more akin to, or some variant on, an
all-or-nothing Prisoner's Dilemma. Neither side is necessarily
encouraged to give in since the only "favorable" outcome for an
individual application--keeping its well-known name--comes from
holding out longest in the confrontation. In this scenario, altruism
on the part of one participant is the only alternative to preventing
an unfavorable outcome for both... and as such both sides (following
classic Game Theory principles) will default to the unfavorable
outcome. In other words, it does nothing to promote compromise
between uncooperative parties.
With the TC as an assumed impartial arbitrating body, this changes
the game to (theoretically) favor the side with the most effective
technical argument when neither can come to an agreement on their
own.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fungi@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fungi@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kinrui@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fungi@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }
Reply to: