Re: supermajority options
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:49:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > >  Is competence an issue? Why or why not?
> > >
> > > I'd say this is addressed by our NM system.
> > Are you claiming that NM is our only criteria for determining relevant
> > competence on all issues?
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:13:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What do you propose? Isn't the scope of the discussion our voting
> system? Do you propose to limit suffrage within the Debian Project?
At the moment, I'm proposing the implementation of supermajority which
Anthony Towns presented in his most recent proposal.
This requires something approaching universal accord when changing
> > > >  Is involvement an issue? Why or why not?
> > >
> > > I'd say this is addressed either by quorum requirements, or by the
> > > simple self-selection process that compels people to vote at all.
> > How about on issues we don't vote on?
> As above; isn't the scope of the discussion our voting system?
Issues which come to a vote result from our informal non-voting
> > > Is it your suggestion that Debian should limit voting rights even
> > > further than we already have?
> > "Majority rule" would tend to limit voting rights more than the current
> > "tyranny by supermajority" (I'm deliberately using the terms of that
> > paper). I'm not currently suggesting that we make this switch.
> I do not understand your assertion. How does majority rule limit voting
> rights? Your reasoning is not clear to me.
Majority rule, as described in that paper, refers to a majority of all
people [as opposed to a majority of interested specialists].
Or are you saying that you don't understand this?
> If Condorcet/CSSD is resistant to strategic/insincere voting, and we
> aren't clever enough to think of a way of introducing supermajority
> requirements to the process without sacrificing an important property of
> Condorcet/CSSD, we have two choices:
> 1) drop supermajority requirements
> 2) use a differeng voting system for anything that requires a
I don't agree with your assumption that we're not clever enough to think
of a way of introducing supermajority requirements without sacrificing
an important property of CpSSD.
> We've already seen what is probably insincere voting in the DPL
> elections (a lot of people ranked the default option second, which means
> "my guy or nobody" -- I doubt any *two* of the candidates provoked that
> much antipathy).
What's your reason for deciding that this is insincere?
What's your reason for deciding that this is relevant to the supermajority
[I'm not saying you don't have reasons -- I'm asking what they are.]
> > > > That said: Debian 3:1 supermajority is LESS OF A CONSTRAINT than a
> > > > requirement that a majority of the voting population agree.
> > >
> > > I don't follow. It's either equivalently constraining, in the sense
> > > that it can be expressed as a simple statement, or it's more
> > > constraining, in that the Project cannot take action on a proposal
> > > without a greater number of people being in agreement.
> > With our current rules, and 2000 developers, 45 people can satisfy a
> > 3:1 supermajority requirement. With a "majority rule" system, you'd
> > have to have 1001.
> Eh? Where do you get that? A majority typically means a majority of
> the ballots cast, not a majority of the eligible voters.
In this context, I'm not talking about "typically". I'm talking about
a system which is based the arguments presented in the paper John
H. Robinson referred to.
> > > Would a 1:3 minority requirement also be "LESS OF A CONSTRAINT"? If
> > > not, why not?
> > Getting a small minority of interested people to agree unanimously (or
> > nearly unanimously) is not as hard as getting a majority of all voters
> > to be interested.
> I don't understand where you're getting "all voters" from.
I'm getting it from the repeatedly expressed argument that a majority's
views should take precedence over a minority's. That argument is moot
if you're using it to advocate a system which allows an active minority
to make decisions for the majority.