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

Re: RFD: informal proposal


After thinking about the whole supermajority stuff a bit, I think we need
to get back to what exactly we want.

I'd say that a single vote is meant to decide between a mutually exclusive
set of options. This means, to me, that each option's supermajority or
quorum requirements should be considered separately, and against the
default option.

A ballot should enable me to express what I prefer honestly. To me, that
means that if some option is not supported by the majority (including any
additional restrictions) then my ballot should be judged as if the option
hadn't been there in the first place.

As an example, let's say we get this result:

> A needs 2:1, B simple majority, D default option.
> 	4 ABD
> 	3 BDA
> 	3 DAB
So A vs. D doesn't meet the supermajority and is dropped. Running the
vote count without option A gets us a nice majority for doing B.

On the other hand, running CpSSD on the above set would yield A, and par.3
of the newest proposal would yield D as the result. In effect, the
algorithm ignores the preferences 'behind' A, in this case the four ABD

I don't like that. IMHO it's better to remove the options from the ballot
if they don't suffice the supermajority or quorum requirements against the
default option before counting. We might get somewhat non-intuitive
effects that way too, or we might not, but as there is no perfect counting
algorithm anyway, I propose to use the algorithm which yields the least
amount of nonsense.

Matthias Urlichs     |     noris network AG     |     http://smurf.noris.de/

Attachment: pgpj5kFiKkgyc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: