On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:13:51AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Executive summary: > Q1: is this the A.3.1 vote, or the A.3.2 vote? > Q2: if the A.3.2 vote, why would you not fix an admittedly flawed > ballot? > to absolve ourselves the appearance of impropriety, i request that the > clarification that this vote is the A.3.1 vote be made. there seems to > be some confusion (not just my own) on this matter. Do you agree that if the 'yes' option meets its supermajority requirement, the GR has the unambiguous support of the developership, or is there a concern that a number of developers would rank the 'yes' option between the 'no' and 'further discussion' options, giving them no way to accurately represent their relative preferences given this ballot? > > In case the Further discussion crowd wins, then we can > > ascertain if the reall outcome would have been "no" rather than > > further discussion; in practice, there would be no difference, since > > I'll make some changes to the GR, and propose a different GR (perhaps > > with the quorum -> minimum threshold of acceptability) > however, if there was a No vote, then you and the rest of the developer > community would know that the voting developers believe that the the > current Constitution is fine, and should be left alone. > a winning Further Discussion would mean (to me, anyway) that We need a > change, but this particular change is flawed/unacceptable in some way. > a winning No vote could make it more difficult to find the appropriate > Seconds for a future revision, since everyone could know that the > community has said ``We like it the way it is.'' > this is where i see a distinct difference from No and Further > Discussion. > with only Yes and Further Discussion, we lose the ability to say > ``Status Quo is acceptable.'' This is a distinction between 'no' and 'further discussion', but only one that's relevant if 'yes' does not meet its supermajority requirement, I think. > > Yes, the ballot is flawed, since I did not see that the 3.2 > > ballot would be doable > i'm now confused. is this the A.3.1 vote, or the A.3.2 vote? > so the only reason to not fix it is because of laziness? is there a good > reason to not fix it? > there is no reason to not fix it. if you can say that this is the A.3.1 > vote, nothing else need be done, everyone is happy, and we have the > A.3.2 vote in a little bit. If this vote can be used unmodified to fulfill the requirements of A.3.1, I see no reason this can't be done. OTOH, after the seemingly interminable debate, it would be nice to see a speedy resolution of this issue; if the ballot can unambiguously be understood to show the necessary support for the measure, it would be nice to be able to forego the second vote and spare the developers the effort of voting twice if the outcome is truly not in doubt. On the gripping hand, > *) a failure of the Secretary to follow the regulations laid out in the > Constitution calls into question the integrity and impartiality of > the Secretary. It's rare that gainsayers will criticize you for following the rules, yes. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpvHm4f8_pCj.pgp
Description: PGP signature