Re: Results for future handling of the non free section GR
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 12:53:21AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> I'd just like to comment that I find the output of the below list hard
> to read, and I'm one of the folks who helped recommend our current
> voting procedure.
Yeah, I tend to agree; separating the interesting comparisons across the
diagonal is confusing.
> > Option
> > 1 2 3
> > === === ===
> >Option 1 169 199
> >Option 2 303 304
> >Option 3 260 156
Also, the web page version of this has "Default" as the column heading,
and "Option 3" as the row heading.
> For that matter, since Option 2 is clearly the Condorcet winner....
> >The Schwartz Set contains:
> > Option 2 "Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free"
> ...why are we looking at the Schwartz set?
I'd assume because Manoj wants to make up a consistent format that he
can just script. In any case, the GR procedure says you look at the
Schwartz set whether there's just one option in it or not.
(Also on the web page, presumably the tally sheet isn't a "dummy" any more)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Reply to: