Re: [Xen-devel] xenbits "official" repo for XTF (was Re: [PATCH 0/2] xtf: add launcher (+1 bugfix)

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] xenbits "official" repo for XTF (was Re: 
[PATCH 0/2] xtf: add launcher (+1 bugfix)"):
> On 07/07/16 12:10, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > @Andrew: would something like test/xtf.git work

I would live with that.

> It would, although given a straight choice I would prefer
> xen-test-framework.git over its abbreviation.

This conversation is in danger of going round in circles.

If we can't get consensus on something like this, the sensible thing
to do would be to vote.  Our governance docs don't really cope with
this kind of multi-answer question; they only do yes/no.

If we need to vote I suggest we use Condorcet.  That is:
 * Each committers gets to nominate up to 3 possible names for this
   proposed new repo.
 * Each committer ranks all the nominated possibilities in order.
 * We use Condorcet to establish whether there is one dominating
   nominee.  (If there is no single Condorcet winner, we remain
   deadlocked but at least we will have a small set of plausible
   possibilities to choose from.)

Condorcet is good because it necessarily demonstrates the underlying
legitimacy, according to the electorate, of the chosen option.  It
also copes well with large numbers of options.  (Tactical nomination
and tactical voting are ineffective.)

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel