On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > A.3. Voting procedure > 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a > separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible > combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further > Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire resolution > procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period. No ^^ > quorum is required for an amendment. The Further Discussion ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Without the second vote, that's no longer appropriate -- you _must_ obtain a quorum in the first vote for an option to pass, otherwise the quorum requirement is meaningless. > option must not have any supermajority requirements. The > default supermajority requirement is one of 1:1, and shall > apply to all options on the ballot unless otherwise specified. That whole paragraph seems a bit unclear, really. Does it make sense to try to automatically combine "independent" amendments? If we have, say: "non-free is evil, change the social contract and kill it from the archives" as the GR, and two amendments: "change the social contract, but only remove unmaintained and buggy packages from non-free, not kill it entirely" and "kill contrib as well" would it really be unreasonable to expect people to propose and second "change the social contract, and remove unmaintained/buggy non-free and contrib packages, so that when everything has been replaced by free software, the components will be empty" specifically? Then you can have something as simple as: Each set of related resolutions and amendments (that is, resolutions that cannot be both adopted), and the default option "Further Discussion", are voted on in a single ballot, using preferential voting. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > A.6. Concorde Vote Counting > 1. This is used to determine the winner amongst a list of options. > Each ballot paper gives a ranking of the voter's preferred > options. (The ranking need not be complete.) > 2. Option A is said to Beat option B if more specify that option > A is over option B than prefer B to A. > 3. Option B is said to be in the Beat Path of option A if option > A beats option B, or if there is an option C in the beat path > of option A where option C beats option B. > 4. An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there is no YM "Schwartz set" here?  There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort? > option B where both A is in the beat path of B and B is not > in the beat path of A. If so, it's defined as: "The Schwartz set is the smallest non-empty set of options such that no option within the set is beaten by any option outside of the set." It's probably easier to say it that way (since you don't need to discuss "beat path" at all then). It'd probably be more intuitive to say "A dominates B if A beats B, or there is some other option C, where C dominates B and A beats C" or something similar, so it's clear which direction the beat path goes in. That rephrases the above as: "An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there is no option B where both B dominates A, but A does not dominate B". > 5. All options which do not beat the default option by their > supermajority ratio are discarded, and references to them > in ballot papers will be ignored. > 6. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes > which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there > are not then the default option wins after all. For votes > requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used > when checking whether the quorum has been reached. Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie: "If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default option. If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference to it in ballot papers will be ignored." Alternatively (6) should be moved to after the winner is determined. Doing it that way would make the method less decisive than otherwise. > 7. If no option beats the default option, the default option wins. Why this special case? The Perl program I wrote for this uses the following system: # 1. Calculate Schwartz set according to uneliminated defeats. # 2. If there are no defeats amongst the Schwartz set: # 2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins. # 2b. Otherwise, there is a tie amongst the Schwatz set. # 2c. End # 3. If there are defeats amongst the Schwartz set: # 3a. Eliminate the weakest defeat/s. # 3b. Repeat, beginning at 1. It might make sense to say: 2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins. 2b. If the default option is in the Schwartz set, it wins. 2c. Otherwise, the voter with a casting vote may choose a winner from the remaining options, or may choose to let the vote be retaken. that is, only do special cases when you really don't have a choice. > 8. If only one option remains in the schultz set, that option is > the winner. > 9. If all options in the schultz set are tied with each other, > the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from the > schultz set. "tied with each other" doesn't seem particularly well defined, IMO. Every single pairwise comparison has to be exactly balanced, or already discarded. > 10. Otherwise, there are multiple options in the schultz set and > they are not defeated equally: > a. The weakest defeat is identified. The weakest defeat > is the fewest votes against any option in the schultz > set, and (for that many votes against) the most votes > for the corresponding option in the schultz set. > b. If more than one option has the exact same number of > votes in favor and the exact same number of votes opposed, > and if those numbers are the same as for the weakest defeat, > all these option pairs are considered to be examples > of the weakest defeat. > c. The schultz set is then refigured with the Beats of the > weakest defeats eliminated. > d. We resume at step 8 with the new schultz set to determine > the winner. "refigured" isn't well defined. Cheers, aj  Soon to be heard when tallying votes: "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine" -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Description: PGP signature