From: Joel (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-06 20:58:16
David Abrahams wrote:
> Joel <joel_at_[hidden]> writes:
>><<My, this contest was not as simple as it seemed at first :P>>
> This doesn't directly address the issue, You may not remember this but
> there was a growing consensus at the end of the contest that we
> probably ought to try again given everything we had learned... as such
> I didn't bother to send you my revised votes. I don't know if there
> are any others in this category, but I would certainly vote
> differently now that the commentary is over, and if there is any
> chance the result will "stick" I probably should have paid more
> attention to the revised vote thing. Too late?
Never too late.
I take it that you want a new vote for this round to take into
consideration the discussions we had here? If that is the
concensus, so be it. I think Christopher's voting procedures
are sound except for the acceptance of new entries. I think we
should reserve that for the second round. I am also all for
holding a second contest given everything we had learned so far.
I was under the impression that we continue with this round
and hold a second round immediately after. There's nothing
stated in the logo page that the winning logo will replace
the current logo anyway, so we have a free hand on what to do
with it as long as the promised prize is awarded.
I move that we all give the Boost founders (Beman, Dave, etc)
the absolute right to decide on whether to accept or reject
the winning logo of the first (and subsequent) rounds as a
replacement of the current. They deserve that right.
In this round, we are bound by what's stated in the logo page.
On the second round (contest) we have the freehand to change
the voting system[***], or simply, get a panel of judges
selected by the Boost founders. It may be that we are being
overly democratic about this which ultimately makes it
a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
It's never too late. I think that choosing the right logo
is of paramount importance that should not be taken lightly.
I'd rather spend a lot more effort on striving to get the
best of the best of the best than arrive at a popular yet
Someone in the CLC++M suggested:
In the future you may want to consider using the Condorcet or Approval
election method as opposed to IRV. They are, arguably, much better
methods. To learn more, I would suggest reading:
-- "The Fairest Vote of All", Scientific American, March 2004, www.sciam.com mainly about Condorcet voting, which is called "True Majority Voting" in the article [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this ! ] </quote> Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk