Re: Why plurality is not "wrong"

From: Jeff Almeida <spud_at_spudzeppelin_dot_com>
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 15:46:38 CDT

Also Sprach Arthur Keller:

>As many on this list have stated, it is not the place of the OVC to
>say any such thing. We will support a variety of mechanisms for
>handling multiple candidates when one is to be chosen. We will not
>advocate any particular one nor will we oppose any particular one.

I'm disturbed between all the confusion between disclaimers and advocacy.
How is it any different if we say, "This is a problem we can't fix," than
a beer commercial stating, "Know when to say when?" We have an obligation
to disclose known process risks when implementing, whether the risks are
internal to our solution, or simply part of the operating environment.

>Do you have something to contribute to the OVC other than your
>interest in alternatives to plurality voting?

That's a pretty forward posture to assume, but in light of the current
disagreement worth addressing: I used to be the Chief Scientist of a
software company; I've since moved on (I now work for a network
services firm descended from one I founded nearly a decade ago). I'm not
much of a Python guy, so I'm staying away from the code itself, with the
intention (already discussed with project leadership via email) of making
myself available as SQA completely independent of development -- a
software development practice I'm quite sure several well-informed
potential customers will ask about.

jeff :)

-- 
************************************************************
Jeff D. "Spud (Zeppelin)" Almeida
Corinth, TX
spud@spudzeppelin.com
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:10 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT