On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: > > > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a > > > personal attack. How else is one to interpret "you are really > > > contributing to infighting and intractability" and "you do not know > > > how to be a team player"? Are they in some way complimentary, or do > > > they somehow provide insight into our Standard Resolution Procedure? > > If you are voting insencerely, and delibrately using majority > > to defeat options that are not preferred, you are short sighted, not > > a team player, and contributing to infighting and intractability. > Not necessarily. A person who ranks their preferences insincerely might > simply feel they're using the system the way it was designed to be used. > In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I > haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I > would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above any > of the other options was voting sincerely. > I say this because the issue had dragged on for three years, we had a > healthy discussion period, and I don't recall that any other > interpretations or clarifications were raised. (I.e., there were no > proposed amendments that didn't acquire sufficient seconds to appear on > the ballot.) Erm, I voted for 'further discussion' above the option of requiring supermajority for the SC and not the DFSG; because while I was somewhat undecided on the question of whether a supermajority was warranted, I couldn't think of any justification for the supermajority requirement that wouldn't apply equally to both documents, and don't believe such an inconsistent policy should be enacted without further discussion. > Instead, I find it more likely that people who ranked further discussion > above any of the other options did so simply to disadvantage options > they disfavored, and that they didn't actually prefer, say, another > three years of discussion and delay. I don't recall seeing an option on the ballot labeled "Three more years of discussion and delay" -- only one labelled "Further discussion". > Since the ballot encouraged people to do that very thing[1], one could > easily argue that people who vote that way are doing exactly what the > system intends them to do. Which hardly seems like an example of insincere voting to me. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpRseAFVc3TU.pgp
Description: PGP signature