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

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/07/16 14:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.)

Really?  Is it that difficult to accept that the original project author
gets to choose the name?

My recommendation to Andrew would be to host the project somewhere else
-- somewhere without this absurd amount of bureaucracy.  github is
popular these days.

David

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