W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > May 2009

An Analysis of the straw poll taken on 2009-05-05

From: Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:02:30 -0400
Message-Id: <ED644725-22CB-4D5E-A0A8-438B3DAC94BC@hitachisoftware.com>
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
I took the liberty of staring at the data and looking at the results  
of the straw poll we took
I tried to look at it from a company basis since that might actually  
reflect some future decision. Where there was conflict between  
representatives, I just picked one.
Tallying the results a different way, I made the presumption that the  
first vote given indicated the preference and that a vote given for a  
candidate in any position might be interpreted as "we can live with  
this result if it came to that"
Now this might not be valid, since that is not how the question was  
asked, but here are the results.

As for preference, there were only two alternatives that received more  
than one vote each they were a with three votes and e with two
Af for "can live with (if this really means this) I tally the following
The alternative with the highest tally was g (leave frags in RT,  
essentially close with no action) with six companies indicating g as  
one of their choices, only one could not (maybe)

The second place alternative was e with five members possibly being  
able to live with it.

In third place we see a tie, a and d with four each

the others had less than half of members mentioning them, so  
presumably are not remotely acceptable.

So, maybe consider, on the basis of maximizing the number that can  
live with a proposal, that we look at settling on one of the  
alternatives that are not expressed as first preference but can be  
"lived with" by most.

STV fails to illuminate this possibility
We will explore this more for sure.


Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 16:03:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:49 UTC