[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> >  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. 

thank you for the clarification.

> 	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. 

and i will leave it to you to make that final determination.

> > 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. 

i don't like that solution.

either we say that this _is_ the A.3.1 vote, or we say it is not. if it
is not, then the time to void it now, or before the vote is closed. if
it is not voided, then we take it as binding (as binding as a Further
Discussion vote can be) barring any other calamity.

> > 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'm interested in how we would do that, unless we get from each voter a
clarified Yes/No/Further discussion ballot. which would be similar to
running a A.3.2 vote regardless.

> > 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.

something seems a bit wrong to me.

if Yes wins, it is a done deal. if Yes loses, then we void the vote, and
try again with a full A.3.1/A.3.2 vote pair?

i certainly hope i am missunderstanding something.


Reply to: