- From: Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:02:30 -0400
- To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
- Message-Id: <ED644725-22CB-4D5E-A0A8-438B3DAC94BC@hitachisoftware.com>
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. thanks -bob
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 16:03:12 UTC