Re: [Demexp-dev] Delegation and ocamlgraph: an example and a list of issues

[skaller]

On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 22:38 +0200, David MENTRE wrote:

> Interesting suggestion. So you propose to have:
> 
>  me > A("u") > B("u","t") > C(all)

> A can only vote on questions with tag "u" for me.

No, I propose demexp enforces

me > A > B > C

and the client enforces the restriction of A to tag u,
B to tag u or t: if A votes on t unexpectedly I just
dump A as my delegate.

My concern is:

1) complexity of maintaining delegation lists in the presence 
of an open set of tags

2) the choice of which tags to assign to a question
itself becomes a political issue

The argument for simplicity is clear. Point (2) however
is important: I don't want to see the voting system
*itself* being the focus of political activity,
instead of discussion of the real issues.

EG: "Subscribe to restrictions on CO2 emissions" is an issue,
should it be tagged "Finance"? It certainly has financial
implications.. but do we want to have a big argument
about how to tag the question ... or should we discuss
the actual question?

I think it would be better if the tagging were informative,
rather than having any enforcible consequences.

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sourceforge dot net>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part