[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Request for comments [voting amendment]



On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is not a full draft.  In this post, I'm only including
> text for replacing A.6 of the constitution.  I wanted to
> also rewrite the changes to A.3, but I've got to run some
> errands tonight and I'm not going to have time to write up
> a full draft.

It's just as well that we review the changes separately, IMO.

I concur with all of Anthony's revisions from Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20021113055101.GF26235@azure.humbug.org.au>, except that I would say
"among" instead of "amongst"[1].

>           Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if
>           option G defeats option F or if there is some other option
>           H where option H is in the beat path of G AND option F is in
>           the beat path of H.

I'm not crazy about recursive definitions.

  Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if option G
  defeats option F, or if there is another option H which defeats G, AND
  option F defeats H.

With this definition you can mentally "build up" a beat path, applying
F, G, and H to different options as you iterate.  Your definition does
have the advantage of functioning better as pseudocode, though.  :)

I suggest this because, being American and thus unaccustomed to
preferential voting mechanisms, I was unfamiliar with the concept of
"beat path" when I was first exposed to it.

> 	   The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
> 	   the defeat.	Where two pairs of options have the same number
> 	   of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
> 	   favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.

I find the second sentence awkward even if it is grammatical.

I suggest:

  Where two pairs of options have the same number of votes in favor of
  the defeated option, the pair with fewer number of votes in favor of
  the defeating option is the weaker defeat.

I have made these suggestions because I think it is important that
people have a firm understanding of how the proposed new voting
procedure works.  We will require a lot of votes to successfully pass
this GR, and while those who have taken the time to educate themselves
on election methods seem unanimously convinced that this GR is a good
idea, we need to able to rely on more than faith in authority figures to
persuade the developers.

[1] How small a nit can I pick?  Only Ian Jackson knows for sure...

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    I just wanted to see what it looked
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    like in a spotlight.
branden@debian.org                 |    -- Jim Morrison
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpnLYb0Z5_Fv.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: