Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:02:17AM +0000, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>>> And FWIW I still believe this vote is an horrible mix-up of really
>>> different things, is completely confusing, and I've no clue how to vote.
>>> I would be surprised other people don't think the same.
>>>
>>> E.g. How can I decide 2 _and_ 4 ? Does the rule change ? Does any
>>> resolution that wins overs Further Discussion will be validated ?
>>> Because unless I'm mistaken, 2 doesn't imply 4, so if 2 wins, 4 is
>>> invalidated.
>>
>> No one seems to have seen it desirable to put a 2 & 4 option on
>> the ballotl; despite the months we took to discuss this. The web page
>> with the options was also up for several weeks, and a draft ballot went
>> up earlier.
>
> It's you who decided to put all the proposals on the same ballot. I
> don't think it's fair to request from people who disagree with that to
> invest time in proposing more options.
Well, I put all related proposals on the same ballot, yes, but it
is because I think we need to do so in order to not let
strategic voting skew the results.
> It's you who decided to make it a mess, you could as an experienced
> vote taker have suggested quite some different things which could have
> made it cleaner instead IMHO.
I do not know how to take this kind of a complex issue, and
cleanly compress it into somewthing that would be both fair and clean.
I opted for fairness, in that we do not have serial votes with
subsets of options leading to a run-off, which would make strategic
voting harder.
>> Seems liek there was plenty of time to change things, and add
>> some of the power set options on to the ballot. If I had added options
>> willy-nilly, you would have screamed again of abuse of power.
>
> Sure, though you could have followed the procedure or hinted people in
> an even saner direction IMHO.
I followed the procedure that I think we have followed in the
past. We do ont make people jump through "and replace all the words in
the proposal by these words" hoops, and we put related proposals on the
same ballot. Unfortunately, some of the proposals are not mutually
exclusive, so combinations are possible; and I did not want to
increase the size of the ballot with combinations; I think had I done
that, there would still have been accusations of the ballot being too
complex.
manoj
--
The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an
8. R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: