Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 02:46:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Under 4.2 Procedure [for developers during a general resolution or
> election], change item 3 to read:
>
> 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes and tallies results
> are not revealed during the voting period; after the vote the
> Project Secretary lists all the votes cast.
Maybe we should say that the Secretary lists the votes in a way that
does not reveal both a voter's name and vote to anyone other than the
voter.
> Under A.2 Calling for a vote, change item 2 to read
>
> 2. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion may call for a vote on a
> set of related amendments.
This is a problem because the previous item states that the
proposer/sponsor may call for a vote but it is never stated what that
person can call for a vote on. Also, this draft of item 2 does not let
the proposer of a motion call for a vote on that motion.
> 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
> option. If the default option wins then the entire resolution
> procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period.
This wording says nothing about motions. Should it? Perhaps earlier
mentions of "amendments" should be changed to "motions to amend" and
this section should be changed to talk about motions.
> 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 have a comprehensible name for N(A,B)*V(A,B): "scaled number of votes
preferring A to B". So the subitem could begin "An option A defeats an
option B if the scaled number of votes preferring A to B N(A,B)*V(A,B)
is larger..."
The name could be stripped down somewhat and remain readable...
This would be a compromise between leaving the reader bewildered by not
defining details vs. defining details first so that the reader doesn't
get the big picture. I disagree with Anthony DeRobertis that you should
define the details first, since "weakest defeat" does not sound too
obscure to me. N(B,A)*V(B,A), OTOH, does.
Thanks,
--thomas
--
Thomas "resc" Smith <tgs@finbar.dyndns.org>
web: http://finbar.dyndns.org/
gpg key id 1024D/ACABA81E, fingerprint:
3A47 CFA5 0E5D CF4A 5B22 12D3 FF1B 84FE ACAB A81E
Reply to: