[r-t] Survey #4: Naming of rotations. Results.

[Matthew Frye]

On 23 Oct 2014, at 00:56, Matthew Frye <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:
> so let's actually get down to a vote:


The options were:
1) Rotations should continue to be considered the same method and so have the same name.
2) Rotations should be permitted (but not forced) to be separately named.
3) The current restriction should be modified, such that certain types of rotations may be separately named, but others may not.This modification is still to be debated / developed.

The rankings were converted to points: 1 point for 3rd, 3 points for 1st.

        1st            2nd            3rd            Average Score

Opt. 1  14 = 42.42%    12 = 36.36%    7  = 21.21%    2.21

Opt. 2  14 = 42.42%    8  = 24.24%    11 = 33.33%    2.09

Opt. 3  5  = 15.15%    13 = 39.39%    15 = 45.45%    1.70

We don't like 3, but very very far from conclusive between 1 & 2. The first option has a very slight edge on average points (was dead tied when I checked on Friday afternoon) but dead tied on first preference votes. Overall of the 33 responses 17 ranked option 1 higher and 16 ranked option 2 higher.

So. Pretty much as inconclusive as it's possible to be, the slight edge to option 1 is too small to be considered a "result". At least opinion being so divided shows that such extended debate was justified.

MF