[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFD: informal proposal

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.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <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.''

Attachment: pgpTtJCPvlhub.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: