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

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:04:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:52:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I argue that we do want neutrality.  It's the same thing as arguing
> > against supermajorities.
> What kind of neutrality do we want?

The kind that makes it rewarding for voters to vote their consciences
rather than calculating their ballots in some results-oriented fashion.

> > As I interpret the paper, the point is that any truly unpopular
> > proposition that is railroaded through will energize the opposition, and
> > result in its prompt repeal.
> This becomes meaningless if the vote replaces the system which
> allows prompt repeal with some other system.

It is true that my proposed course of action presumes that Debian
Developers in general are not absolutely without any foresight

> Are you talking 50% of 2000 debian developers + 1?  Or are you talking
> 50% of the active voters + 1?

I am only concerned with majorities or supermajorities with respect to
the ballots cast.  I think it's better to use quorum requriments to
address issues of voter turnout, if we feel that is important.

> > Why would they flip-flop between in extremes under our system, where we
> > can have multiple options on the ballot, and rank-ordering by the voter?
> You're advocating that that be subject to change.  So it's at worth
> discussing the fundamentals of this kind of change.

I don't think I quite understand what you're saying here.

G. Branden Robinson                |    The best place to hide something is
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    in documentation.
branden@debian.org                 |    -- Ethan Benson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpKXgjkCiKlZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: