Different kind of votings (Re: Taking a step back)

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Henning Thielemann <lemming at henning-thielemann.de> writes:

> Applied to libraries at haskell.org we would no longer count +1, -1 and 0, but
> only -1 and 0 anymore, but we would also consider the status quo as one of
> the alternatives.

The only problem with not hearing positive votes is that we don't know the
size of the number of people in favor.

Here's what ANSI/ISO does in the case of C++: We have a tiered voting system.
First, you take a "straw poll" (say, on this list) to determine the level of
interest. To this, people vote: SA WA DC WF SF. That is: Strongly Against,
Weakly Against, Don't Care, Weakly in Favor, Strongly in Favor.

Only motions largely in favor move forward. Those that have Strongly Against
votes lead to further discussion with those who are disappointed. We try not
to force anything down anyone's throats if it can be avoided. SA votes really
mean something, perhaps even more than SF.

If a motion is largely in favor, it moves to formal proposal before the
committee (which in this case might be the Haskell Prime committee?). Each
member of that committee has a vote, and simple majority decides whether it
moves to the last round.

In the last round, delegates from each country who make the final decision by
majority. In the case of Haskell, our "countries" might be different:
Academia, Industry, Hobbyists, etc. These delegates are supposed to represent
the will of their constituents, but can vote however they wish.

In this way, no vote is a surprise, and there are several stages of both
public and expert consideration as it moves toward a formal conclusion.

John