Re: Request for comments [voting amendment]
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:58:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Must a supermajority-required option directly defeat the default option
> by this margin? What happens if the supermajority-required option only
> transitively defeats the default option? How do we numerically define
> the margin of the defeat?
Yes, it must. The default option is "further discussion" in most GRs, and
a "none of the above" that equates to further discussion in DPL elections.
If the default option wins, we have another vote, where proposers of that
option can either argue their case better, or realise that they're the
appropriate majority of developers don't support the opinion at that time.
> I am concerned about the introduction of supermajority requirements
> introducing an opportunity for strategic voting into our system
> that Cloneproof SSD/Concorcet doesn't otherwise possess.
In a way, the default option is there specifically so that you can
vote strategically. Rather than saying "I prefer this option over that
one", you're saying "I find this option unacceptable". If a majority
of developers find an option unacceptable; or a "superminority" find it
unacceptable in the case of consitutional amendments etc, it's entirely
appropriate for them to be able to be able to say so.
Another alternative might have been to have the default option win if
it's _ever_ a member of the Scwartz set, rather than if it's a member
of the Schwartz set after the sequential dropping phases are complete.
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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.''