Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:59:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:18:41PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > >>>>> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee <email@example.com> writes:
> > Bdale> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > >> FWIW I have always assumed that the casting vote is implicit in
> > >> the chair's ballot. To require the chair to explicitly exercise
> > >> their casting vote, as opposed to the chair's preferences as
> > >> expressed on the ballot being applied automatically, opens up
> > >> another set of vote gaming strategies that we really shouldn't
> > >> get into.
> > Bdale> I would have assumed that, too, but since others did not
> > Bdale> share the assumption, it seemed prudent to be explicit about
> > Bdale> it.
> > This assumption does not make sense to me in the following cases:
> > * Chair ranks multiple options equilly
> If the chair ranked them equally in his ballot, why should he express a
> different preference when it comes to the casting vote?
I think the vote should always result in something, and as such
the person having the casting vote needs to pick one of the
options that are left in the Schwartz set. If there was no
preference between them, a choise will still need to be made.
I've actually been wondering about this issue myself the past few
days, and this seems to me the only good reason why the casting
vote should be a different vote than the earlier vote.