[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Re: Groups - oasis - Ballot "SCA service wsdlElementpointing to a WSDL service" has closed
I had similar concerns but since this was a strawpoll didn't ask for an STV. My further complain about OASIS KAVI is: The option 'other' didn't get counted. It truncates the responses so I can tell what people voted for (three of the options start with 'We should allow this case'). Fortunately, only one of those three got votes -- so by process of elimination I can figure out what it was. Looks like SimonN voted for 'other' with an explanation. But I can't see the explanation. So potentially, Simon could have said something that changed peoples mind and altered the result. -Anish -- Eric Johnson wrote: > Anyone know who should be informed that the ballot mailer cannot count? > > workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org wrote: >> OASIS Service Component Architecture / Bindings (SCA-Bindings) TC member, >> >> A ballot presented to OASIS Service Component Architecture / Bindings (SCA-Bindings) TC has closed. >> The text of this closed ballot is as follows: >> --- >> "SCA service wsdlElement pointing to a WSDL service" >> Do you think we should define the behaviour of wsdlElement on an SCA service pointing to a WSDL service, and if so, what should the behaviour be? >> >> - We should disallow this case >> - We should allow this case but say nothing >> - We should allow this case and require the runtime to provide at least one of the ports, possibly more >> - We should allow this case and require the runtime to provide all of the matching ports >> - Other >> >> --- >> >> Quick Summary of Voting Results: >> - We should disallow this case received 9 Votes >> - We should allow this case but say nothing received 0 Votes >> - We should allow this case and require the runtime to provide at least one of the ports, possibly more received 0 Votes >> - We should allow this case and require the runtime to provide all of the matching ports received 6 Votes >> >> 15 of 17 eligible voters cast their vote before the deadline. >> > If you actually look at the ballot page, only ten people voted: > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bindings/ballot.php?id=1674 > > Since we were allowed to vote for two options, that apparently > hopelessly confuses the balloting system. > > Of the ten people who voted, nine voted for "we should disallow this case." > > I'm not sure if the "may vote for two" option was intended as "instant > runoff", but if it were, then that suggests that people like myself who > only voted for one item "lost" a vote. Arguably, if I only voted for > one option, does that mean that my vote should count twice? If so, you > could tabulate it as: > 14 votes for "we should disallow". > 6 votes for "allow, but match all ports" > > Seems like another demonstration that voting systems are unavoidably biased. > > -Eric. >> Voting results for all closed ballots are available on the sca-bindings eVote Archive at: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bindings/ballot_archive.php >> >> Thank you, >> OASIS Open Administration > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]