Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR
On Jun 10, Manoj Srivastava (srivasta@debian.org) wrote:
> > this is all very easily solvable by clarifying that this vote is the
> > A.3.1 vote. no other action need be made.
>
> But it was not; and there is no need for a 3.1 vote, since
> there are no alternates. This is a mistake made in creating the
> ballot, and the responses to the situation we are in are in issue.
>
> > i want to see this thing done, also. let's do it the right way, and
> > absolve ourselves of appearances of impropriety. that is all i ask.
>
> *Shrug*. If the yes wins by a sizeable majority, I don't see
> much impropreity. I'll still ask the people voting Further
> Discussion whether they wanted to vote No.
>
> The alternative is to void this vote, and wait until the
> second week of July, when we can start the 3.1 vote, and sometime in
> August or September for the real vote.
I don't think there was any impropriety here. Still, I think the simplest,
lowest cost, least confusing thing to do is void the current vote and redo it.
I don't see why we need a A.3.1 vote, though, I agree with your original
interpretation that it is not necessary if there are no amendments. So, all
we'd need is another (proper) A.3.2 vote.
--
Neil Roeth
Reply to: