Subject: Re: Notes of Study Group Meeting, March 27, 2000
From: Mark Zwolinski (mz@ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 28 2000 - 05:01:14 PST
"Peter J. Ashenden" wrote:
>
> Wolfgang,
>
> Thanks for circulating the notes.
> >
> > The discussion arose, how to interpret these results. Kamal pointed out,
> > that according to British and Australien election votes, the candidate with
> > the highest number in votes wins.
>
> Sorry I can't speak for the British system, but we use a preferential
> system here. Each voter expresses first, second, third, etc
> preferences. We initially count first preferences. If no candidate
> gets more than 50%, the votes whose first preference went to the lowest
> polling candidate are redistributed according to the voters' second
> preferences. If still no candidate is more than 50%, the votes of the
> next lowest candidates are redistributed according to their second
> preferences. And so on. Eventually, one candidate will cross 50% after
> some number of redistributions of preferences, and that candidate wins.
> It may not be the candidate that has the largest number of first
> preferences, but it is supposedly the one that is "most preferable" to
> the greatest number of voters.
So as we didn't express preferences there should be a second round of
voting now.
>
> So looking at the votes cast, I would interpret them as follows. A
> majority accept the panel recommendation that SUAVE be adopted in one
> form or the other. Half of them prefer SUAVE alone, the other half
> prefer SUAVE plus entity/architecture inheritance. The minority prefer
> Objective VHDL, despite the panel's recommendation. Part of that
> preference is due to the entity/architecture inheritance features of
> Objective VHDL. So by adopting SUAVE plus entity/architure inheritance,
> that aspect of the minority preference would be satisfied. Hence I
> think adopting SUAVE plus entity/architure inheritance would be "most
> preferable" to the greatest number of voters.
>
That's one interpretation. I voted for SUAVE because I don't like
entity/architecture inheritance. I'm not sure I would care whether SUAVE
+ e/a i or OVHDL
were chosen. I don't think I want to be automatically included in this
consensus.
> > Further it was stated that offering a
> > third option was not according to the orginal intention of the selection
> > procedure the group had decided on.
>
> No, but the original procedure didn't allow for the kind of
> recommendation that the review panel eventually made, namely that SUAVE
> plus entity/erchitecture inheritance be adopted, or failing that, that
> SUAVE alone be adopted. At the meeting with HDLCON, it ws decided that
> the third alternative be added to the vote question, since that was the
> panel's recommended alternative.
>
Well 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but was the correct voting
system chosen?
> > However, in few of the limited attendance to the meeting and the
> > implication of the decision, the group decided not to take a formal vote on
> > the interpretation of the vote and on the next steps, but rather to open an
> > e-mail discussion on this issue.
>
> Ok. My $0.02 above. Also, we need to get the DASC membership info to
> confirm that part of the vote. We are still waiting on the info from
> "IEEE Heaven."
Let's see what happens, but I think a second round of voting is the only
way to resolve this.
-- =================================================================== Dr Mark Zwolinski Electronic System Design Group Tel. (+44) (0)23 8059 3528 Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science Fax. (+44) (0)23 8059 2901 University of Southampton Email. mz@ecs.soton.ac.uk Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~mz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 28 2000 - 05:04:23 PST