Tal’s vote only has two options: take the 3-2-1 method or discuss further. This is missing the default of “let’s keep things as they are” and the only concrete option proposed in the poll is not a notable voting process. As @brettcannon said, it looks like the people concerned about the voting process are outnumbered by the silent majority.
As such, I consider Tal’s poll to be a way for opponents to IRV to rally around a single counter-proposal (3-2-1).
I strongly suggest that if support for that single counter-proposal is not clear by end of October 30 AoE, we run the vote as currently expressed in PEP 8001.
While I am very curious about the 3-2-1 method myself, it is alarming that the best source of information on it is currently a Quora answer. It does not sound like this is a notable, proven method (yet). Singling it out as the sole concrete option in the poll is surprising to me, especially given the Arrow theorem brought up on python-committers by @Alex_Martelli. But if this is the counter-proposal you’re rallying around, that’s fine by me.
I think it is already risky to fiddle with PEP 8001 this close to the vote. But it would be unacceptable to make changes to the voting process within two weeks of the vote. That means we would have to push the vote to 2019.
Keep in mind this is also distracting from discussing the actual proposals.
Q: “But I want this poll to decide the voting method, period!”
A: Well, the poll as stated above is not compatible with this want. At the sprint, out of 25+ committers there, we’ve had a self-selected group of nine that decided on IRV. Thus, a late vote to overturn the selected voting mechanism should identify first and foremost whether there is enough consensus to do it. So at the very least the vote should have three options:
- Keep PEP 8001 as is;
- Replace IRV with 3-2-1;
- Postpone the vote to 2019 and discuss PEP 8001 further.
Stating it in such terms would make it more clear how big the opposition actually is. And that “keep bikeshedding” has a price.