On Oct 22, 2010, at 8:46 AM, mdipierro wrote: > > I do not oppose a run-off if Bruno and Martin have the time to > continue with the project. > My guess is that the longer we drag this, the more people will lose > interest but I may be wrong.
I'm not arguing with the choice; it's just an electoral digression. Something to consider, though, if the voting software is carried forward. > > Massimo > > On Oct 22, 10:06 am, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote: >> On Oct 22, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Anthony wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Oct 22, 9:50 am, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: >>>> Thanks Bruno for your hard work. >> >>>> Although we have to choose one (and it seems to me we have a clear >>>> winner), I propose we keep some of the alternative ones (I personally >>>> like 8, 14, 21, 41, 76, 87, 89, 12, 112) and we make them available >>>> under an Artistic License for web2py related community sites. >> >>> 104 is cool too, and it might be fun to use 37 somewhere as well. >> >> From the point of view of a voting guy >> (http://prfound.organdhttp://code.google.com/p/droop/), a quibble: the >> design with the most votes got 12 of 71 votes, just under 17%. In a normal >> election, we might question whether 17% of the vote yields a "clear winner". >> That's why Anthony and I have been harping on the need for a more >> sophisticated voting method for this kind of contest. >> >> My quick and unverified scan of the page turns up 69 votes, btw, not 71. If >> that's right, there's a bug somewhere. Here's my list: >> >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 1 >> 2 >> 2 >> 2 >> 2 >> 2 >> 2 >> 4 >> 5 >> 5 >> 6 >> 7 >> 12
