Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I also
>> think that placing all related proposals on a single ballot is
>> relevant, it prevents an easy exploit of the voting system by simply
>> setting up a series of votes that can be gamed, and setting up all
>> kinds of related proposals to be set up on different ballots.
>>
>> Frankly, I think that kind of gaming of the voting system that
>> is being proposed now, and I am not comfortable letting that happen.
>
> BS. People still need to find enough seconds; if you think we need
> more seconds for GRs, propose a GR.
I do not think I meant proposed as in formal proposals to be
voted upon. I meant splitting up votes for the same issue which leads
to the results being gamed.
Say, for example, we do split up the votes. And the winning
options of different votes contradict. Which takes precedence? If it is
the latest vote, which vote is voted upon last? Can I withsraw an
option, and put it to vote at the very end, to get an edge?
Why is having an omnibus vote now, and a vote on option #4 and
option #6 in January any worse than arbitarily splitting votes? (We
could stipulate that actions on the january votes apply only after
lenny releases, to prevent people trying to game the lenny release).
manoj
--
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. Oscar Wilde
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: