David Abrahams wrote:
Joel <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Comments? Objections?
<<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 mediocre choice. [***] Someone in the CLC++M suggested: <quote> 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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com... http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm http://www.condorcet.org/rp/IRV.shtml http://electionmethods.org/ http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/ -- "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