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

Re: supermajority options


On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
> [1] ... [5]
I did not think much about this until now.
But what do you think about

[6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used
    to change the constitution or social contract.  We could use
    something like: every voter may just say "yes" or "no" to the
    proposed change (i.e. there is no list of options).  The change
    is accepted if there are, say, at least Q total votes and at
    least N times as may "yes" votes the "no" votes.

reasons why this could make sense:

 * Supermajorities are a tool to protect fundamental documents
   of the project by making changes to them more difficult.

 * My main concern about supermajorities is, that this would
   somehow "damage" the positive aspects of Condorcet voting in
   a hard to understand way.  By not using Condorcet voting to
   change these protected documents this would be resolved.

 * Of course strategy [6] only makes sense for yes/no decisions.
   But I guess that proposed changes to the fundamental
   documents are typically such decisions.  For example I saw no
   alternative proposals in the remove-non-free debate.

 * If we really would want to cover the case of several
   competing proposals we could use a two step mechanism: we
   could first determine a candidate via Condorect voting with
   CpSCC (without any supermajority stuff) and then use [6] the
   decide whether we want the winner of the first step to be

What do you think?

Attachment: pgpvQaKrQj4pZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: