Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:29:31 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> Yes, the ballot is flawed, since I did not see that the 3.2
> ballot would be doable (In my hurry, I skipped over 3.1 -- since
> there were no alternatives, and did not recall that 3.2 mandated the
> No option), but in practice we can see that in this case the flaw may
> noit make a difference to the outcome.
>
> I guess on this issue I am more interested in getting this
> issue resolved, rather than being a rules lawyer, since I
> do not think the outcome shall be affected.
>
> If you can show me how the outcome is changed, or the project
> affected detrimentally, I am open to being persuaded otherwise.
I too want the voting issue to be resolved, i think your oversight might
make it harder to get the supermajority.
If voting acording to the constitution, people voting against the
amendment will have their votes split between two options.
As it is all people voting against the amendment will be concentrated
under the "Further Discussion".
It doesnt make sense having a further discussion option if there is only
one option.
I think the constitution needs to be followed (or changed), but its
easier to changing the voting system if we can agree on a
method of voting.
Glenn
Reply to: