Re: current A.6 draft
> > So, in this case, the fact that no option has enough approval from the
> > developers (none defeats the default option by by 2:1) means that it's
> > probably a good idea to talk through the issue a bit more.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 05:42:02PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> Sorry again that my example has been fragmented and is thus unclear,
> but: The original premise is that everyone really thinks that both
> A and B are better than the default (obviously, the technical
> committee is locked in a closet and can't vote). A and B might in
> fact be minor variations on the same idea. But supporters of A rank
> D above B to sabotage B, and vice versa. Under your system this
> works, reliably. And there is no way out (within the voting
> system).
[1] Why is it obvious that the technical committee is locked in a closet?
[2] Why is "further discussion" not the right outcome if people are
expressing preferences that they don't believe in?
> Maybe Debian voters have enough integrity that this is not really a
> problem. But I find it worrying that the incentive exists.
If we can't trust them to vote what they think, why should we trust the
outcome of such a vote?
> Regarding your other message: This is one _specific_ disadvantage
> to your system that I don't think has been looked in the face.
I'm not sure why you don't think this has been "looked in the face".
In my opinion "further discussion" is the right outcome for this
situation.
--
Raul
Reply to: