You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@commons.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> on 2002/10/24 01:56:55 UTC
-1 vs -0.9 (was: Naming issues)
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:49:08AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>...
> In truth, I made a mistake in vetoing, since I never wanted to stop
> Peter, it was just a strong opinion but I wrongly threw in a -1... (ya
> know, it happens that we use it in discussing, just for opinions, but
> when you follow 28 lists it sometimes happens to make a mistake).
In the past, I've advocated that people avoid using -1 to mean "strong
against, but not a veto." It is just too confusing. People always end up
having to append "yah that's a veto" or "not a veto". Why the hell use the
short numeric voting form if you just have to explain it in prose?
To that end, I adovcate using something like "-0.9" to mean you're against
it, but it isn't an official veto. Use -1 when you're actually vetoing.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: -1 vs -0.9 (was: Naming issues)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <an...@superlinksoftware.com>.
-pi (unrounded version ;-))
This is getting too complicated ;-)
-Andy
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:56:55PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>
>>To that end, I adovcate using something like "-0.9" to mean you're against
>>it, but it isn't an official veto. Use -1 when you're actually vetoing.
>>
>>
>
>I agree. I would go further and say that the magnitude of the number you
>use should express your willingness to volunteer (or find alternative
>solutions) on a proposal. In other words, if you give it a +0.5, then
>you should be 0.5 willing to volunteer for that idea if it passess.
>
>-aaron
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: -1 vs -0.9 (was: Naming issues)
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:56:55PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> To that end, I adovcate using something like "-0.9" to mean you're against
> it, but it isn't an official veto. Use -1 when you're actually vetoing.
I agree. I would go further and say that the magnitude of the number you
use should express your willingness to volunteer (or find alternative
solutions) on a proposal. In other words, if you give it a +0.5, then
you should be 0.5 willing to volunteer for that idea if it passess.
-aaron
Re: -1 vs -0.9 (was: Naming issues)
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:50:29PM -0400, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> In jakarta-commons, and I believe in other areas of jakarta, the voting
> "ballots" tend to look like this:
>
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action and will help
> [ ] +0 I am in favor of this action but cannot help
> [ ] -0 I am not in favor of this action
> [ ] -1 I am opposed to this action and here is why:
>
> I think it works well.
I always liked seeing these kinds of explicit votes on general@jakarta and
tomcat-dev@jakarta. +1 for having this style of voting on this project. :)
-aaron
Re: -1 vs -0.9 (was: Naming issues)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:50:29PM -0400, Michael A. Smith wrote:
>...
> I've always thought that's what -0 was for.
Re: -1 vs -0.9 (was: Naming issues)
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Michael A. Smith wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:49:08AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> In truth, I made a mistake in vetoing, since I never wanted to stop
>>> Peter, it was just a strong opinion but I wrongly threw in a -1...
>>> (ya know, it happens that we use it in discussing, just for opinions,
>>> but when you follow 28 lists it sometimes happens to make a mistake).
>>
>> In the past, I've advocated that people avoid using -1 to mean "strong
>> against, but not a veto." It is just too confusing. People always end up
>> having to append "yah that's a veto" or "not a veto". Why the hell use
>> the short numeric voting form if you just have to explain it in prose?
;-)
>> To that end, I adovcate using something like "-0.9" to mean you're
>> against
>> it, but it isn't an official veto. Use -1 when you're actually vetoing.
>
>
> I've always thought that's what -0 was for. 0 meaning it's not a vote
> that counts, and - to indicate you're against. If you throw qualitative
> words in there (like "strongly against, but don't want to actually
> veto"), then you'd need to explain that in prose.
>
> In jakarta-commons, and I believe in other areas of jakarta, the voting
> "ballots" tend to look like this:
>
> [ ] +1 I am in favor of this action and will help
> [ ] +0 I am in favor of this action but cannot help
> [ ] -0 I am not in favor of this action
> [ ] -1 I am opposed to this action and here is why:
>
> I think it works well.
Anyway, the bottom line is:
"*never* use -1 if it's not a veto"
Anything greater than -1 (-0.9 , +1000, etc) will be regarded as being
fancy ;-)
I think I'll go with -0.9 for strong opposition, anyway.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: -1 vs -0.9 (was: Naming issues)
Posted by "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:49:08AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>...
>>In truth, I made a mistake in vetoing, since I never wanted to stop
>>Peter, it was just a strong opinion but I wrongly threw in a -1... (ya
>>know, it happens that we use it in discussing, just for opinions, but
>>when you follow 28 lists it sometimes happens to make a mistake).
>
>
> In the past, I've advocated that people avoid using -1 to mean "strong
> against, but not a veto." It is just too confusing. People always end up
> having to append "yah that's a veto" or "not a veto". Why the hell use the
> short numeric voting form if you just have to explain it in prose?
>
> To that end, I adovcate using something like "-0.9" to mean you're against
> it, but it isn't an official veto. Use -1 when you're actually vetoing.
I've always thought that's what -0 was for. 0 meaning it's not a vote
that counts, and - to indicate you're against. If you throw qualitative
words in there (like "strongly against, but don't want to actually
veto"), then you'd need to explain that in prose.
In jakarta-commons, and I believe in other areas of jakarta, the voting
"ballots" tend to look like this:
[ ] +1 I am in favor of this action and will help
[ ] +0 I am in favor of this action but cannot help
[ ] -0 I am not in favor of this action
[ ] -1 I am opposed to this action and here is why:
I think it works well.
regards,
michael
--
Michael A. Smith
mas@apache.org
Re: -1 vs -0.9 (was: Naming issues)
Posted by Scott Sanders <sa...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:56:55PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:49:08AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >...
> > In truth, I made a mistake in vetoing, since I never wanted to stop
> > Peter, it was just a strong opinion but I wrongly threw in a -1... (ya
> > know, it happens that we use it in discussing, just for opinions, but
> > when you follow 28 lists it sometimes happens to make a mistake).
>
> In the past, I've advocated that people avoid using -1 to mean "strong
> against, but not a veto." It is just too confusing. People always end up
> having to append "yah that's a veto" or "not a veto". Why the hell use the
> short numeric voting form if you just have to explain it in prose?
>
> To that end, I adovcate using something like "-0.9" to mean you're against
> it, but it isn't an official veto. Use -1 when you're actually vetoing.
>
+0.9 :) OK, seriously, +1.
--
Scott Sanders - sanders@apache.org