Re: Status of Proposals [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5
Hi,
>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
Branden> That's not precisely what I recall us agreeing to. I recall
Branden> us agreeing to a ballot that, I suppose, could take a form
Branden> like this:
I guess memory does not serve me as well as it should
;-). However, there is a logic flaw in the ballot you propose below,
which mine addresses.
Branden> [ ] YES to Foundational Documents amendment
Branden> [ ] NO to Foundational Documents amendment
Branden> [ ] YES to "modify and withdraw" amendment
Branden> [ ] NO to "modify and withdraw" amendment
However, I find there to be little practical difference
between the above, and this, except for one flaw in the above:
Manoj> a) Allow modification of non technical docments as long as certain
Manoj> documents are recognized to be ``foundation'' documents, and
Manoj> require the same super majority to modify that the amendments to
Manoj> the constitution require (this is my proposal) [Full text below]
Manoj> b) Allow non technical documents t be modified (without any provision
Manoj> for special treatment for any document (this is branden's
Manoj> proposal, stated far more informally and imprecisely than he did)
Manoj> [Full text below]
Manoj> c) further discussion.
Which is the same as:
[ ] YES to Foundational Documents amendment + "modify and withdraw" amendment
[ ] YES to "modify and withdraw" amendment alone
[ ] Further discussion
There is one practical difference: in the latter, you can't
have the illogical ``some documents need special protection to
modify'' ([X] YES to Foundational Documents amendment) at the same
time as ``we can't modify and with draw documents'' ([X] NO to
"modify and withdraw" amendment) . That is plain silly, and is
possible in your formulation, but not in mine.
I contend in all other respects the ballots achieve the same
purpose.
Branden> That's fine; but the fact remains that text of my amendment
Branden> is included in yours. All I wanted was for people to be
Branden> able to vote on the issues as separate changes, not
Branden> necessarily disjunct in time. I recall us talking at ALS
Branden> about the danger of there being a "window" wherein the
Branden> Foundational Documents amendment, if passed, would not be in
Branden> force because my "modify and withdraw" amendment had been
Branden> passed beforehand.
Quite right. I think that structuring the ballot either as you
propose, or as I do, serves as the same thing.Indeed, it is silly to
vote for the foundation classes thing if you do not agree to the
change and modify amendment, and this is the hole my ballot closes.
In my formulation, people vote for option a if they like both
amendments; they vote for yours if the like yours and not mine, and
further discussion if they like niether.
Branden> * amend Constitution to change language of section 5
Branden> * amend Constitution to add sections 5.1 and 5.2
Branden> These are, of course, nonexclusive options; a person may
Branden> vote for either, both, or neither.
Branden> This is what I recall us agreeing to; does this
Branden> satisfactorily match your recollection?
Yes, it does. I merely contend that both formulations of the
ballot are equivalent (as long as one also assmues that the vote on
an issue is boolean -- so not voting yes for a is the same as voting
no for a) [apart from the second form eliminating an illogical
combination] ;
[ ] yes to a
[ ] no to a [ ] yes to a AND b
[ ] yes to b <===> [ ] yes to b alone
[ ] no to b [ ] further discussion
[ ] further discussion
Am I making a mistake in my logic? Indeed, is the form on the
roght not less likely toresult in on-intuitive results using
concordet rules as well (since it is simpler and has less possible
outcomes, while catering to all constituencies)?
I hope you agree.
manoj
--
Neurosis is a communicable disease. -- Solomon Short
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: