Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:35:04 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <email@example.com> said:
> Neil Roeth wrote:
>> On Jun 9, Manoj Srivastava (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>> > On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 03:52:53 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> > <email@example.com> said:
>> > > Actually, we'd handle it this way:
>> > > * First we'd have a vote on which resolution we want to pass
>> > > (A.3.1), which would have as option for the original
>> > > proposal and any amendments, and Further Discussion. Since
>> > > there weren't any amendments that received enough seconds,
>> > > it would look exactly like the above. This vote doesn't
>> > > require a supermajority or a quorum.
>> > >
>> > > * Then, once that vote was decided, we'd have a "final vote"
>> > > (A.3.2)
>> > > whether to pass the resolution, the options on that ballot
>> > > being "Yes", "No" and "Further Discussion". That one
>> > > requires a supermajority of votes to rank Yes above No, and
>> > > a supermajority to rank Yes above Further Discussion to pass
>> > > (A.6.7)
> my reading is that 4.1.2 requires a 3:1 supermajority to amend the
> Constitution. A.6.7 is the implementation of the requirement.
>> > Is this complexity required?
> according to A.3.1, yes. we must have this complexity.
To what end? I'll freely admit being rushed in this vote (real
life intervened), but is this complexity merely to confirm to the
Let us examine the possibilities here.
Of the items on the ballot, 2 are present:
b) Further discussion
Now, people who really want to say no have to be satisfied
with further discussion: it is unlikely that people who wanted to say
No would actually vote Yes.
So, if the Yes sayers win in a landslide; whether or not there
was a No option on the ballot is immaterial, since it would
not have changed the outcome.
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)
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.
Paranoids are people, too; they have their own problems. It's easy to
criticize, but if everybody hated you, you'd be paranoid
too. D.J. Hicks
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C