On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, at 7:49 AM, Brent Roose wrote:
> Doesn't it make the most sense to re-vote the syntax? I'd consider the
> previous vote to be invalid given the parsing issues that weren't
> listed in the RFC.
> A re-vote seems the most fair: if the majority still prefers @@, then
> so be it. Otherwise the syntax changes once again, before
> feature-freeze. I suppose the RMs should have a final say in this
> Kind regards
One of the advantages of having conducted it as a ranked-choice-vote is that we can easily disqualify the @@ option and then recount with just the other two, counting @@ supporters' second choice. No new vote is needed, unless we think a significant number of people would have changed their minds between << >> and #[ ] since then. (I think that's unlikely, personally.)
IIRC, it looked like #[ ] would win that runoff but it's easy enough to recompute and be sure.
I agree this is ultimately an RM decision for how to proceed; my recommendation would be to Make A Call(tm) if the parsing issues of @@ are significant enough to disqualify it, and if so, recompute the vote as above and go with the result.
@@ may be easier to type than the others, but at the end of the day the parsing problems it introduces seem like the killer blow to me.