On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:54:30PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you > > (or at least I) mightn't expect. > > ... > > Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation > I'm not too surprised by this. I'd hope you wouldn't be surprised by how you voted... :) > I think it's entirely logically > consistent to second something then vote against it. Seconding an option > (particularly an amendment) just means "I think this should be voted on" > not "I'm going to vote for it". That's what it means to the person doing it, and to people who follow -vote. When you haven't followed -vote, and are trying to grok some options based on the vote.d.o page and the post to d-d-a, you tend to go by who proposed/seconded the proposals. When the RMs names appear, eg, that tends to add weight to a proposal, as does having seconds from a bunch of people you know of and don't think are daft. Fortunately it's still a somewhat accurate measure, so it doesn't tend to completely misinform DDs who don't follow -vote, #debian-devel, etc and have to use that sort of heuristic to be even moderately informed, but it seems useful to keep track of just how far off heuristics like that are. There are probably ways to improve the vote.d.o page so that people less engrossed in the process can be better informed, but until that happens, we've got what we've got... Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature