On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 07:35:17PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I claim that "my first preference is yes on option A", is a yes vote
> > > for option A. And, if A requires a supermajority, then A.6(7) applies.
> > > Do you claim this is not an actual reason? Why?
> > You're also claiming that "my second preference is a yes on option A"
> > is a no vote for option A.
> > I'm claiming that "I prefer option A to the status quo" is a yes vote
> > for A, and "I prefer the status quo to option A" is a no vote for A, at
> > least as far as quorum and the supermajority are concerned.
> Actually, if you're talking about a properly formed A.3(3) vote, where
> you're voting on option A and independent option B, there should be
> on the ballot:
> Yes on A and B
> Yes on A, no on B
> Yes on B no on A
> no on A, no on B
> further discussion.
Okay, now consider the vote being proposed by Manoj and Branden, then
one that has alternatives "Allow modification of foundational documents
with 3:1 supermajority" and "Allow modification to all documents".
Note that the discussion so far seems to indicate the issue will be
resolved by a single vote with the options:
[ ] Allow modification of foundati...
[ ] Allow modification to all docu...
[ ] Further discussion
Is this a third way of allowing issues to be decided supposedly allowed
by the constitution, with yet another different bias towards choosing
a winner in corner cases?
Supposing "A" and "B" are contradictory in your example above (ie,
"remove non-free" and "support non-free", or "modify 4.1.5 to say <foo>"
and "modify 4.1.5 to say <bar>", what happens if "Yes on A, Yes on B"
wins the vote?
Note if you have more than two real alternatives, you get an exponential
increase in the number of options listed on the ballot; if these options
are mutually exclusive almost all of these options will be incoherent.
Consider the leadership elecions we've had, by section 4.1.1 and 4.2.1
we use the the procedures outlined in appendix A to resolve them. Have
the leader elections been invalid (since the ballots only had the various
candidates and "further discussion" as options, and we were never given
an option to vote "yes" or "no"), and if so, will future ones be
conducted so we get to vote for:
[ ] Yes to "Wichert as Leader", yes to "Ben Collins as leader",
Yes to "Joel Klecker as Leader", yes to "Matthew Vernon as
Leader"
[ ] ...
?
I was under the impression your interpretation of A.3(3) was mainly to
make the previous votes we've had constitutional.
I'm not seeing what relevance `YYY/YYN/YNY/YNN/...' votes have to this
discussion at all. They're not something we've ever done, and they seem
way to awkward to be anything we'd ever want to do.
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.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgpJC7jBenQ8F.pgp
Description: PGP signature