Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft
> > 7. The decision will be made using A.6 of the Standard Resolution
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:01:48AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Insert "section" between "using" and "A.6"
Hmm... is it a section or an appendix? Should it matter? Currently,
the constitution uses the word "section" only once (in the context
of the SPI), and doesn't use the word "appendix" at all.
What does this add?
> > Procedure. The quorum is the same as for a General Resolution
> > (s.4.2) except the default option is None Of The Above.
>
> I assume the "s" is supposed to be ISO-8859-1 character code 167, the
> section symbol, "§"?
Currently, the constitution is ascii, and doesn't use "§" at all.
I don't think s.4.2 is ambiguous, do you?
> > 7. Appoint the Chairman of the Technical Committee. The Chairman
> > is elected by the Committee from its members. All members of the
> > committee are automatically nominated; the committee vote starting
>
> Change "vote" after "committee" to "votes". Alternatively, if "committee
> vote" is the name or description of the event, then change "starting" to
> "starts".
>
> The third, and my favorite, alternative is "the committee starts voting"
Ok.
> > one week before the post will become vacant (or immediately, if it
> > is already too late). The members may vote by public acclamation
> > for any fellow committee member, including themselves; there is
>
> Either the "all members of the committee are automatically nominated" or
> the "for any fellow committee member, including themselves" is
> redundant.
This redundancy doesn't particularly bother me. In essence, this
presents the same concept from two different points of view: perhaps
the perspective will be useful to some people.
> > no default option. The vote finishes when all the members have
> > voted or when the outcome is no longer in doubt. The result is
>
> Here you use the short form "no longer in doubt". However, above (not
> quoted, in 4.2.3) you did a long-run around this phrase. I suggest just
> using the phrase, and finding somewhere to define it.
Hmm... this sounds like a good idea.
> > Replace A.3 with:
> >
> > A.3. Voting procedure
> >
> > 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
> > separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
> > combinations of amendments and options from that set, and a default
>
> Strike "such" in "Each such ballot." Further, there is something wrong
> there --- I think the second use of options ("amendments and options")
> should be struck.
I'll strike "such".
I'm tempted to leave the "amendments and options" bit the way it is,
but I need to think about this a bit more to figure out why or why not
or what else instead.
> > option. If the default option wins then the entire resolution
> > procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period.
>
> > 4. Votes may be cast during the voting period, as specified elsewhere.
> > If the voting period can end if the outcome is no longer in
> > doubt, the possibility that voters may change their votes is
> > not considered.
>
> Strike "if" in "if the voting...."
Ok.
> Change "in doubt, the" to "in doubt, ignoring the" and strike "is not
> considered" from the end. Alternatively, if you like the phrase "not
> considered," then use "not considering" instead of "ignoring"
Or rewrite this sentence to refer to a definition of "no longer
in doubt"...
> > Replace A.5 with:
> >
> > A.5. Expiry
> >
> > If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or
> > otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks the secretary may issue a statement
>
> change "4" to "four"
*shrug*
Ok.
> > that the issue is being withdrawn. If none of the sponsors of any
> > of the proposals object within a week, the issue is withdrawn.
>
> Change "any of the proposals" to "the proposal". We are talking about a
> single "proposed resolution". If this was intended to allow sponsors of
> amendments to object, then that needs to be clarified (e.g., "of the
> proposal or any amendments of it")
It was, I'll clarify.
> > The secretary may also include suggestions on how to proceed,
> > if appropriate.
>
> I don't think that sentence is needed.
Are you saying this is a bad hint?
It's not that big of a deal, but I was thinking that this might be a
useful reminder in that context.
> > A.6 Vote Counting
> >
> > 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not all
> > options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered preferred
> > to all unranked options. Voters may rank options equally.
> > Unranked options are considered to be ranked equally with one
> > another, and below any explicitly ranked options. The other
> > details of how ballots may be filled out will be included in
> > the Call For Votes.
>
> Change "may" to "must" in "may be filled." The act of voting itself is
> optional, however, the format of the ballot is not.
Ok.
> Also, "filled in" seems to be slightly preferred over "filled out",
> according to Google.
Interesting.
But does this matter?
> > 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement (Q) any options other
> > than the default option which do not receive at least Q votes
> > ranking that option above the default option are dropped from
> > consideration.
>
> Q is not the number of votes needed for the quorum! Sometimes, quorum is
> 2. Other times it is thrice Q --- that is, 3Q.
>
> Q is just a number defined in 4.2.7 as half the square root of the
> number of developers.
Oops, you're right, I forgot about this. I'll rephrase.
> > 3. Any option which does not defeat the default option by its
> > required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
> > a. An option A defeats an option B if N(A,B)*V(A,B) is larger
> > than N(B,A)*V(B,A) and if the (A,B) defeat has not been
> > dropped.
>
> I was about to tell you to define A, B, N, V, and (A,B) but I see you've
> done it below. Please make this (c) --- put the definitions above their
> use.
Please explain why this is better? If I adopt "define before use", does
this mean I'm supposed to place the definitions above the sentences which
use those definitions? Does the constitution need to be completely
reorderd so that voting mechanics are defined before we discuss the
contexts where voting is used?
> > b. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters
> > who prefer option A over option B.
> > c. If a majority of n:1 is required for A, and B is the default
> > option, N(B,A) is n. In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1.
>
> Erm, we use N(A,B) above, but define N(B,A) here.
Is this ambiguous?
Do I need to declare A, B and C as "option variables"?
> > 6. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then the winner
> > is chosen from the options in the Schwartz set. If there is
> > only one such option, it is the winner. If there are multiple
> > options, the elector with a casting vote chooses which of those
> > options wins. If there are no options in the Schwartz set,
> > the default option wins.
>
> Is it possible for the default option to be a member of the Schwartz
> set? If so, should it win in that case?
No, it's not possible -- the default option should always be eliminated
at A.6.3. The Schwartz set is composed of options which defeat the
default option. If no options defeat the default option the default
option wins.
Is this ambiguous? Perhaps I should add to A.6.3:
The default option never defeats itself.
In principle, this should be obvious from the definition of defeat,
but a little redundancy sometimes helps alleviate confusion. Or
perhaps you were just verifying that I hadn't made a mistake?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: