On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:17:05AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:07:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > "Status-quo" means don't resolve *anything*. There are at most two > > ways of doing that: by doing nothing, and not even discussing the > > matter again, and by doing nothing constructive, but continuing to > > flame each other. I personally don't think that's a distinction > > that'll be successfully determined by a vote, though. > I disagree. > Status-quo in the context of supermajority means don't do anything that > requires supermajority. That can still leave a lot of options. Well, you're welcome to disagree, but be aware that your definition doesn't match the way the current system (the N+1 votes) works, and doesn't match the way most systems work (which only provide "No, don't resolve this" as a `status-quo' option). Biassing the results towards options that don't require a supermajority doesn't seem a particularly useful thing to do to me [0]. Cheers, aj [0] I say "biassing" since if you take a vote where you have two options: * Modify social contract (M) (requires 3:1 supermajority) * Do nothing (N) and M has unanimous support over N, and then add a third option: * Evade constitution (E) (which would resolve that, say, "No new .debs will be added to non-free, and wherever possible .debs already there will be removed"), which is preferred over N by everyone, but preferred over M by just over a quarter of the voters, it'd win. This isn't what would happen in the current system (E would be dismissed when deciding on the form of the resolution), and isn't, IMO, a reasonable outcome at all. -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there'' -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgpIQu8_TKE92.pgp
Description: PGP signature