[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



Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:13:51AM -0700, 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.
> 
> Do you agree that if the 'yes' option meets its supermajority
> requirement, the GR has the unambiguous support of the developership,

yes. since i believe that yes voters would also rank No below Yes if the
option were there.

> > 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.

the Secretary has already clarified that this vote is the A.3.2 vote.

> > *) 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.

by following the rules, the naysayers will lose that argument in their
rebuttal. we cannot lose anything by following the rules, except a
little bit of time.

if we fail to follow the rules, then i certainly hope that Further
Discussion wins because i do not want to see a Yes win polarize the
project.

-john



Reply to: