Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 04:40:22AM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Bug cc dropped, replaced with -ctte.
>
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:29:27AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:59:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options
> > > that aren't your favourite.
> > When you are saying "a set of proposals considered reasonable by all the
> > members", that basically implies "don't offer the T rider options" since
> > these are options that are not considered reasonable by at large part
> > (at least 3 members) of the TC.
>
> I'd consider that tactical voting. Basically, I think the value in the
> FD option is to be able to say "this option has not been fully baked,
> and more discussion would be helpful to ensure it is properly understood
> and the consequences are clear".
The Constitution disagrees with you on that:
Options which the voters rank above the default option are options
they find acceptable. Options ranked below the default options are
options they find unacceptable.
A less disputed example makes it more clear where that does make sense:
3 of the 6 TC votes (Steve, Colin, Russ) voted all sysvinit options
below FD since they do not consider sysvinit acceptable as default
init system for jessie.
I doubt anyone thinks that further discussion is needed for sysvinit,
but some TC members do sincerely not consider it an acceptable option.
> That's a long way different to saying "if my preferred option does not
> win, we should delay making a decision and keep holding votes until it
> does win".
No TC member ranked FD on second place, and all 6 votes stated that
both D and U are acceptable.
>...
> UL > FD (5:1)
> DT > FD (5:3)
> DL > FD (6:0)
>...
> Since there aren't any circular transitive defeats, Schwartz set is
> every unbeaten option, and thus is:
>
> DL, UL, DT
>
> independent of Keith and Bdale's ballots.
Under the assumption that both Keith and Bdale rank DT above FD.
> There aren't any defeats
> between these options, so it's down to a casting vote.
>...
> On the other hand, if the committee has sincerely finished discussion and
> wants to come to a conclusion, I think that's the right outcome for such
> a precisely divided issue, and that the fact the Debian voting system
> would actually drop UL and DT in the above case is a problem. I think
> that's due to "insincere" ranking of FD, but if it is, then rewarding
> that is a bug in the voting system.
DT beating FD only 5:3 would be a sincere expression of 3 TC members
that they do not find T acceptable.
I'd actually call it a bug in the voting system that the casting vote
might decide between an option that 3 TC members do not find acceptable,
and an option that is unanimously considered acceptable. [1]
But there is no perfect voting system that handles all possible cases
perfectly.
> Having Further Discussion be a "yes" or "no" option, rather than being
> ranked against other options would probably have been a better plan --
> the result then would presumably be 8:0 FD>*, or 8:0 *>FD.
>...
That would enforce extreme tactical voting in TC votes for everyone
wanting to express something like "sysvinit is not acceptable":
A TC member would have to initially vote "yes" to FD, and only switch
it to "no" when the remaining votes make it clear that the option he
considers unacceptable cannot win.
Or wait with his vote until the other votes make it clear whether he
should vote "yes" or "no" for FD.
> Cheers,
> aj
cu
Adrian
[1] if both Keith and Bdale would rank DL above FD
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: