RE: Why plurality is not "wrong"

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Mon Apr 19 2004 - 09:36:23 CDT

Jeff sez:
...
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.

<laird>
Can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop talking about the "danger" of plurality
voting?
It's out of OVC's scope. There are plenty of other projects promoting
various voting
schemes.
</laird>

...
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.
...

<laird>
Cool. Let's focus on this! :-)
</laird>

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 23:17:12 2004

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