On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:19:25PM -0500, moth@magenta.com wrote: > > > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There > > > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or > > > concurrently. > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I'll give it very serious consideration, but first I would like some > > guidance from you in the form of a reply to Message-ID: > > <[🔎] 20031102100909.GW2495@deadbeast.net>. > > I'm not sure what you expect here. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00081.html > > Seems to posit that there is some specific number of ballots required > to resolve the issue of people proposing amendments which do not > incorporate text or ideas from the original proposal (or, perhaps, that > you find discordant?). And then you go on to ask what the value is for > this number. Huh? I fear you have completely lost me. Going back to earlier messages in this thread: A) Anthony DeRobertis says that we should have orthogonal choices on separate ballots. B) Manoj points out that editorial changes to the Social Contract could be considered orthogonal to dropping clause 5 of the Social Contract. (For what it's worth, I agree. I specifically distinguished "semantic" from "editorial" amendments in my original RFD.) C) Anthony DeRobertis speculates that I'd be amenable to advocating that the editorial amendments be considered seperately from the semantic ones (specifically, the proposal to drop clause 5). D) Manoj says it's up to me to suggest this, as it's my proposal. E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD. This sort of alteration to a proposed GR is, to my knowledge, unprecedented in the brief history of our Standard Resolution Procedure, so I don't feel unjustified in seeking the Project Secretary's guidance. Moreover, the Project Secretary probably doesn't seek to construct a ballots that the proposers of general resolutions are going to be unhappy with. > [1] Why is this an issue? Because several people have expressed a desire to be able to state disjunct preferences regarding the various severable parts of my proposed GR? At the same time there a concern over at least theoretical abuses of the SRP seems to be developing. > [2] Resolve how? By identifying the number of orthogonal issues on my original RFD? > [3] Why would you assume that anyone could associate any kind of number > with such a vague problem statement? What's vague about my original RFD? While I'm cognizant of the fact that I need to get back to people about various editorial changes they've suggested, no one has even formally proposed any amendments yet. Unless a lot more discussion starts happening, I have no reason to suspect that my original proposed GR won't be pretty clearly recognizable in the ballots it generates (assuming I see the procedure through and request a CFV). > [4] How does "number of ballots" shed any light on anything of any > interest to anyone? It tells us how many discrete issues have been raised as gives an opportunity to vote our preferences on them independently of the others? > More fundamentally: this whole thread devolves to some bogus "veto power" > which does not exist, and therefore cannot be discussed in a rational > fashion: I don't even see where you're coming from with this. What do you mean by "veto power"? What's bogus about the scenario I proposed in the original message in this sub-thread? There seem to be nothing that can stop people from proposing such amendments and collecting the required seconds. This "cannot be discussed in a rational fashion"? That's a terribly dismissive thing to say. Do you feel I am incapable of discussing it rationally, or is it that you do not wish to? > Amendments do not dispose of the original proposal, except with the > agreement of the proposer and seconds. That doesn't rebut anything I've said in this discussion, as far as I can tell. In fact, I rely upon the fact. My areas of interest have primarily been the impact of "irrelevant" ballot options on the way people order their preferences, whether such options tend to promote the insincere ranking of preferences, and whether the insincere ranking of preferences is thought to be a problem by the people who use the voting system. It seems obvious to me that if an amendment could "dispose" of an original proposal such that the original proposal did not even appear on the ballot, then the original proposal would be cease being directly relevant to the conduct of the vote; it would no longer be an option that could be ranked preferentially, whether sincerely or not. Consequently, I do not understand how your final statement rebuts anything in particular. -- G. Branden Robinson | Suffer before God and ye shall be Debian GNU/Linux | redeemed. God loves us, so He branden@debian.org | makes us suffer Christianity. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Aaron Dunsmore
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature