On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:59:22PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > Maybe what we really need in mixed-supermajority votes is to make > explicit which options support which other options. To illustrate > the need for this, consider this vote, with results identical to > yours: > A - rename Technical Committee to Non-Technical Committee > and change its role accordingly (2:1 required) > B - leave Technical Committee alone > D - Further discussion > I think you'll agree that in this case, it's not reasonable to count > a B A D vote as support for the supermajority requirement for A. (If you > don't agree, then please explain, because then I'm really missing something > in your argument.) What that vote is saying is that "I'd rather finish the issue, and have A win, than keep discussing it". Personally, I'd expect anyone who didn't want A to happen under any circumstances to have voted B D A, and I'd only want supermajority provisions to come into effect then. > One way to fix this could be to separate the "default option" and > "superminority" roles, so that there would be an explicit "Maintain > status quo" option that does not invite further discussion. For the DPL elections, you convince the current leader to re-nominate. For other GRs, you make an amendment that says "keep doing what we're currently doing". I would continue treating the "default option" as the "superminority" option, though. Consider a vote: A -- remove non-free B -- keep non-free, and everyone else STFU C -- further discussion It seems fairer to me to bias towards further discussion, than a decision that we can't agree on. Cheers, aj -- 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.''
Description: PGP signature