Re: Another proposal.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences)
> to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me.
Er.. are you suggesting we squelch debate on supermajority?
None of the additions were "random". They were flawed in a number of
ways (I had a flawed understanding of the significance of pairwise ties
in CpSSD, for example), and we've been discussing the flaws.
Personally, I'm currently looking at the draft implied by
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021122063835.GA28726@azure.humbug.org.au>
If it doesn't make sense, I'd like to understand why. If it does
make sense, I'd like to see a formally written instance of that draft.
Right now it seems to make a lot of sense.
> And what are we trying to protect ourselves from?
At the moment? We're trying to protect ourselves from instituting a
bad set of rules.
> I cannot really imagine something like a "hostile take-over"
> of the debian project.
Neither can I.
However, I can imagine us making changes out of frustration or anger,
or for some other reason making changes where we've not fully considered
the implications of a decision.