Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:13:51 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <jaqque@debian.org> said:
> 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.
No, this not the firt part of a two part vote.
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:35:04 -0700, John H Robinson, IV
>> <jaqque@debian.org> said:
>>
>> > according to A.3.1, yes. we must have this complexity.
>>
>> To what end?
> two ends, actually.
> one: No does not mean Further Discussion.
> two: we have an accepted methodology for doing exactly what we are
> doing. we are, without good compelling reason, disregarding it.
A mistake was made. However, now we have to respond to the
situation. At this point, we need tosee what is reasonable to do, and
the costs involved in what we do.
>> Let us examine the possibilities here.
>>
>> Of the items on the ballot, 2 are present:
>> a) Yes
>> 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.
> i agree with that.
>> 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.
> i agree with that, too.
>> 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.
I suggest the people who have voted Further discussion let the
rest of us know what you meant, in case the Yes wins in a
landslide. I'll publish those on the web page, and shall give it the
same publicity that the results shall have.
> a winning Further Discussion would mean (to me, anyway) that We need
> a change, but this particular change is flawed/unacceptable in some
> way.
If it comes to that, I'll void this vote, or treat it as a 3.1
vote.
> 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.''
If further discussion wins, we shall ascertain whether the real
winner was a No option.
>> 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.
> does a person's opinion _really_ matter when the procedure is
> spelled out in the Constitution?
> (7.1.3 says that one person's opinion does matter, and that happens
> to be the Project Secretary ;)
Guess what.
>> If you can show me how the outcome is changed, or the project
>> affected detrimentally, I am open to being persuaded otherwise.
> *) a win by a No vote could make it less likely to gain seconds for
> a
> similar proposition in the future.
> *) a failure of the Secretary to follow the regulations laid out in
> the
> Constitution calls into question the integrity and impartiality
> of the Secretary.
> 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.
manoj
--
paycheck: The weekly $5.27 that remains after deductions for federal
withholding, state withholding, city withholding, FICA,
medical/dental, long-term disability, unemployment insurance,
Christmas Club, and payroll savings plan contributions.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.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
Reply to: