Voting

We have been trying to tune the voting process, see 2260. The goal is to balance stability with flexibility.

Issues

  1. Occurrence of “draft” in country locales: http://www.unicode.org/cldr/data/dropbox/misc/draft_in_country_locales.txt
  2. And non-country locales: http://www.unicode.org/cldr/data/dropbox/misc/draft_in_noncountry_locales.txt
  3. Gratuitious changes in country locales: pt_PT has lots of such from pt (= pt_BR)
  4. We want people to be able to make fixes where needed (it is frustrating to request a fix, but not have it confirmed because people don’t look at it)
  5. But we don’t want to have “wiki-battles”: how do we “protect” against bogus data, while allowing needed changes?

Suggestions

  1. Set a higher bar
    1. on changes to “critical” locales (union of principal’s main tiers, intersected with those that are fleshed out well)
  2. http://www.unicode.org/cldr/data/charts/supplemental/coverage_goals.html
  3. on country locales.
  4. Allow multiple separate votes for TC organizations for non-critical locales. For Vetter status, two sets of eyes should be sufficient. Downside is “deck-stacking”.
  5. Vote on “logical groups” (eg sets of Months) as a whole.
  6. Show country locale differences as “alts”.
  7. Save votes for “active members” across releases. See 2095.
  8. not feasible for this release.

Background

Our current voting process is at http://cldr.unicode.org/index/process#TOC-Draft-Status-of-Optimal-Field-Value

The key points are:

Resulting Draft Status Condition
approved - critical loc O ≥ 8 and O > N
approved - non-critical loc O ≥ 4 and O > N
contributed O ≥ 2 and O > N and G ≥ 2
provisional O ≥ 2 and O ≥ N
unconfirmed otherwise

In our previous version, approved required O ≥ 8.