[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] 1st/3rd person doxy

Mon Jul 19 02:12:26 CEST 2010

On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 03:43:55AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> i get no free time and no sleep :(
> heres the vote about the most important bikeshed this year.
> 
> following options exist, also our script can handle people dynamically
> adding new options and options rated equal but it cant handle it if you
> dont duplicate my typos so copy & paste them. 
> 
> things should be listed and numbered in order of preferrance, with most
> favored at the top
> voting method in case they differ is the schulze methode and voting
> application is svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/michael/trunk/ffvotetov
> 
> 1. add a 1st person rule to policy
> 2. 1st or 3rd person as the maintainer prefers, no addition to policy needed
> 3. add a 3rd person rule to policy
> 4. further discussion
> 5. add a 1st person perogative rule to policy
> 
> 
> also there are 2 contradicting viewpoints, first being that it should be
> decided by our best english speakers and the second is that everyone
> has to work with the documentation and thus should decide.
> also theres the question if we need/want another rule or not
> 
> vote period is 7 days from when its sent, after that the vote is over
> and the result final.
> in case no votes are received the voting period will be extended by a
> week and if needed repeatly

Ok, vote period is over, given that people where apparently not allowed
to take their straight jackets off and submit votes that can be parsed
by our script i tried my best to turn peoples comments in this thread into
valid votes, if someone wishes to change his vote from how i interpreted it
just say so and we extend the voting period by a week and people can then
all change their votes.

Jason: "6.  Votes like this are stupid."
1. Votes like this are stupid.

Mans: "I vote 6."
1. Votes like this are stupid.

Diego
> 6.  Votes like this are stupid.
That sums it up perfectly.
1. Votes like this are stupid.

Mike
What's wrong with the de facto policy of everyone adds documentation as
best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
1. everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact

Rob "I would vote for Mike's suggestion."
1. everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact

Benoit
As far as '1st/3rd person doxy' is concerned, my personal preference
(that I have not raised before) would be for the way it is today.
The patch Stefano proposed to add this policy to the doc also looked OK.
So I guess this is choice 5 of this pole.
1. add a 1st person rule to policy

Vladimir Pantelic 
> What's wrong with the de facto policy of everyone adds documentation as
> best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact?
which makes it proposal 7) and I vote for it"
1. everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact

Stefano "I vote for the impersonal form, as it's the form currently implemented"
1. add a 1st person rule to policy

Michael
1. 1st or 3rd person as the maintainer prefers, no addition to policy needed
2. add a 3rd person rule to policy
3. everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
4. further discussion
5. add a 1st person rule to policy
6. add a 1st person perogative rule to policy
7. Votes like this are stupid.

Parsed as:1 Votes like this are stupid.
Parsed as:1 Votes like this are stupid.
Parsed as:1 Votes like this are stupid.
Parsed as:1 everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
Parsed as:1 everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
Parsed as:1 add a 1st person rule to policy
Parsed as:1 everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
Parsed as:1 add a 1st person rule to policy
Parsed as:1 1st or 3rd person as the maintainer prefers, no addition to policy needed
Parsed as:2 add a 3rd person rule to policy
Parsed as:3 everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
Parsed as:4 further discussion
Parsed as:5 add a 1st person rule to policy
Parsed as:6 add a 1st person perogative rule to policy
Parsed as:7 Votes like this are stupid.
Candidates:
 Borda: 18  30"Votes like this are stupid."
 Borda: 22  34"everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact"
 Borda: 14  23"add a 1st person rule to policy"
 Borda:  6   9"1st or 3rd person as the maintainer prefers, no addition to policy needed"
 Borda:  5   8"add a 3rd person rule to policy"
 Borda:  3   6"further discussion"
 Borda:  1   4"add a 1st person perogative rule to policy"
Instant runoff winners:
  3  3  2  1  0  0  0  3  3  2  1  0  0  0
  3  3  2  1  0  0  0  3  4  2  0  0  0  0
  3  4  2  0  0  0  0  3  4  0  0  0  0  0
  3  4  0  0  0  0  0  0  4  0  0  0  0  0
  0  4  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0
  everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
Condorcet methods based on votes:
  Pair table:
   0   3   3   3   3   3   3
   4   0   4   3   3   4   4
   3   2   0   2   2   2   3
   1   1   1   0   1   1   1
   1   1   1   0   0   1   1
   1   0   1   0   0   0   1
   1   0   0   0   0   0   0
  Condorcet winner(s):
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
  minimax winner(s):
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
  nameless? sum:
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
  Ranked pairs winner(s):
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
  Cloneproof schwartz sequential droping / beatpath winner(s):
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
Condorcet methods based on margins:
  Pair table:
   0  -1   0   2   2   2   2
   1   0   2   2   2   4   4
   0  -2   0   1   1   1   3
  -2  -2  -1   0   1   1   1
  -2  -2  -1  -1   0   1   1
  -2  -4  -1  -1  -1   0   1
  -2  -4  -3  -1  -1  -1   0
  Condorcet winner(s):
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
  minimax winner(s):
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
  nameless? sum:
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
  Ranked pairs winner(s):
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact
  Cloneproof schwartz sequential droping / beatpath winner(s):
    everyone adds documentation as best they can and the native speakers clean it up after the fact

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your
right to say it. -- Voltaire
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20100719/61cefdb8/attachment.pgp>