Re: supermajority options
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
Branden> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:15:45PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Except I have not found the paper to be convincing; I think
>> that the underlying assumptions are about mechanisms that are far
>> different from ours, and that this difference is enough to invalidate
>> the conclusion reached.
Branden> The mechanism discussed is any balloting method that selects
Branden> among exclusive alternatives, can produce a winner by
Branden> numerical count, and has only one vote to a voter.
Not quite. I think quite a lot of consideration is given to
the bargaining power of the the voters, where they can change their
votes for consessions, which is how the us congress and senate work.
Branden> Does that not apply to Debian's voting mechanism?
The underlying assumptions for a lot of the statements do not,
in my opinion, apply to us.
>> >> So, supermajorities are, in my opinion, still needed for cases
>> >> where we want a (very) rough consensus, where mere majority ought not
>> >> be the sole criteria for adopting a measure.
>>
Branden> consensus
Branden> n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: {general agreement>
>>
>> Word games, I see. The common usage, when it comes to making
>> decisions in debian, has been a term closer to unanimity.
Not that that term is ``(very) rough consensus''. Pre
constitution, unanimity was what we had decreed, and supermajorities
are a step back from unanimity as the project grew.
Branden> "Word games"? Since when is 67% or even 75% close to
Branden> "unanimity"? In the Debian Project today, the minority is
Branden> going to be on the order of one-hundred fifty to two hundred
Branden> people.
It is not. But it is, in my opinion, (very) rough consensus --
which is more than 50% +1, as you implied. Look, you know what we
mean when we try for rough consensus -- you have been part of the
process long enough.
Additionally, I'll try and refrain from polemics, if you agree
to do the same, and work with the opposition view, without dragging
the channel through nit picks and dictionary definitions.
So, the gist of my position was that a supermajority of 3:1 is
a fair measure of a rough consensus, and that we do have issues on
which a rough consensus is desirable.
>>
>> I would have defined rough consensus to be about 90% of the
>> people agreeing.
Branden> Then why don't we have a 9:1 supermajority requirement
Branden> anywhere in the Constitution?
Because the constitution, thank god, is more than my
opinion. Surely you knew this? ;-)
manoj
--
Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot. Groucho
Marx
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: