Erik Moeller wrote:
1) An article is counted if, trimmed of all trailing
whitespace (blanks,
newlines etc.), it is longer than zero bytes (non-empty) AND
2) it contains at least one link.
This is almost exactly the result that I wanted.
The only thing that I'd prefer is to let each wiki decide for itself,
but that takes a lot more coding.
I have done my best to avoid errors, and for the first
stage have compared
with Tomos' count, but I cannot be certain. While an error is unlikely to
affect the result, pedants may want to doublecheck just in case. Please note
that votes added after yesterday's deadline should not be counted. I also
did not count the anonymous vote (6 against dynamic).
And since Jimbo endorsed the result, you didn't count my vote, right?
(See my comment on the talk page.)
Finally, I would like to point out that the process has
led to a remarkable
number of ideas -- some of them awful, sure, but some of them, like the link
idea, have never been mentioned on the mailing list. This, too, demonstrates
the advantages of a formalized brainstorming process.
A formalized brainstorming process? Certainly a good idea.
Since the first of your voting pages that I saw,
I've thought that they were a good way to get people
to come out and talk. It's insisting that the results be valid
that is problematic.
3) The system used therefore allowed us to gather a
very large amount of
information about the opinions held. It would be difficult, if not
impossible, to gather as much information through a non-formalized process.
Same comment as above.
5) The combination of options and the possible
requirement to split up voting
into stages need to be discussed to avoid ambiguity (e.g. "can more than one
option win?").
In this case, a maximum of 1 restriction other than size was allowed.
Indeed, several things like this were decided by the voting administrator,
not the voters.
These are my thoughts for now -- please add yours.
Oh, and I like approval voting better than this method. ^_^
-- Toby