Re: RFD: informal proposal
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:01:32AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > The issues are utterly separate. Just because people mildly prefer one
> > direction over another doesn't mean they're actually unhappy with that
> > other direction.
> I've been trying to understand this. Are you concluding this lack of
> unhappiness because there are 90 preferences of A over D?
No, I'm not inferring it or concluding it, I'm assuming it. I think it's
quite reasonable for people to mildly prefer one option over another,
without wanting to be part of a "superminority" that will block that
other option from being accepted.
If that's a reasonable position for people to have, then they ought to be
able to express it in the voting system.
> > > > If you have:
> > > > A - remove non-free (2:1 supermajority required, say)
> > > > B - handwave about the issue, don't really do anything
> > > > D - further discussion
> > > > you might get results something like:
> > > > 60 A B D
> > > > 30 B A D
> > > > 10 D B A
> D is just
> "further discussion", while B sounds much more like a definite "No,
> don't remove non-free" vote to me. I don't see how you infer
> supermajority support for A, from a supermajority support for "A or B".
Again, I'm not inferring it, I'm assuming it: that 90:10 people are happy
to remove non-free, and that 60:40 people would rather remove non-free than
handwave about it. If it weren't the case -- if, say, only 60:40 people were
happy to remove non-free -- they should have voted:
60 A B D
30 B D A ***
10 D B A
and their opinion "No, don't remove non-free" would have been accurately
expressed, and B would have won since A didn't achieve its required
supermajority, and B was the next best compromise. (A eliminated since
it doesn't beat D, B beats D 90:10, the fact that A beats B 60:40 is
irrelevant)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: