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

Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:25:46PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  >> 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.
>  > I think it's a mistake to keep that; exactly how to separate independent
>  > but related options is a job for the proposers of the resolution and its
>  > amendment, not the secretary.
> 	I guess I must be dense. All that the item is saying that one
>  does not tack on unrelated amendments to a GR a la US congress.

There's two things: one is keeping amendments related to the original
part (which I'm not sure that what we've currently got really does that),
and the other is manufacturing options to vote on, by extending, say:

	Original Resolution
	Original Resolution, amended according to A
	Original Resolution, amended according to B
	Original Resolution, amended according to C

...to also include:

	Original Resolution, amended according to A and B (*)
	Original Resolution, amended according to A and C (*)

(as a "sensible combination of amendments"). Working out that "B and C"
can't be "sensibly" applied together should probably be a job for the
people who'd vote for "O + B and C", not the secretary.

>  I do
>  not see any language as to who is making this decision; apart from
>  the statement that the secretary creates the ballot. In this case,
>  the proposers could come together and ask for the secretary to create
>  a ballot given selected options.

Sure, they can do that anyway, by proposing another amendment. If they're
not required to do that, the secretary's the only one left who can.

> 	Even if I agree in principle to the fact that deciding what is
>  unrelated belongs to the proposers, what if the proposers of the
>  resolution, and proposers of amendments that are not acceptable to
>  the original proposers disagree? 

Anyone can propose an amendment, whether the original proposers disagree
or not.

But really, that's the question: if there are different "sensible" ways
of putting `B and C' together, it's easier and saner to just let people
gather seconds in the usual way to get their preferred phrasing on the
ballot, than to argue about it with you, or worse, argue about it when
there's no clear authority to make decision.

>  > "Each resolution and its related amendments is voted on in a single
>  > ballot, that includes an option for the original resolution, each
>  > amendment, and, where applicable, the default option."
> 	Hmm. Are we saying there are cases where no default action may
>  be on the ballot? Wouldn't a "make no changes pursuant to this GR"
>  always be a reasonable default option?

I'm not sure; there are certainly some votes where there's no default
option, it's not clear to me which ones are held using the whole of
appendix A, and which are only held using A.6. 4.2(4) requires an
immediate vote with no quorum, and I'm not sure if a default option
makes an incredible amount of sense.

>  >> 5. The votes are counted according to the the rules in A.6  If a
>  >> quorum is required then the default option is Further Discussion.
>  > "...otherwise there is no default option."
> 	Is there ever a case that a GR has absolutely no quorum
>  requirement? 

See 4.2(4). Also, A.6 assumes there's a default option; if there's not
always (and there isn't -- the tech ctte leadership elections don't have
one) then the rules that discuss the default option should probably be
preceeded by an "If there is a default option...".

If there's always to be a default option when all of A is used, that
should be written: "Unless otherwise specified, the default option is
Further Discussion" -- quorum is irrelevant.

>  >> 6. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters
>  >> of procedure (for example, whether particular amendments should
>  >> be considered independent or not).
>  > This could die too.
> 	I would abide by that if that is the consensus.

Whether particular amendments should be considered separate or not
isn't strictly procedural IMO; it'd at least be good to kill the bit
in brackets, which afaict is the only bit of procedure that's not spelt
out. I have no problem with the rest of it.

>  >> 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.
>  > Keeping the default option around, lets us kill the last sentence's
>  > special case, too.
> 	I am not sure I understand. Are we saying that the default
>  option shall always be in the Schwartz set? 

No: as long as we go into the Cloneproof-SSD set with a non-empty set of
options, then we'll end up with a non-empty Schwartz set. If we keep the
default option, and all the options that defeat the default option (or
all the options on the ballot, if there's no default option), then that'll
be non-empty, and we'll have one or more options in the Schwartz set.

ie, the steps I'm suggesting are:

	1. If there's a default option, satisfy quorum and supermajority
		[this leaves us with the default option, and those other
		 options that satisify q & sm; or else it leaves all the

	2. Apply cloneproof-SSD
		[this does nothing but eliminate defeats / break ties, so
		 while it reduces the size of the Schwartz set, never
		 empties it; if we've got a default option, it's either
		 the only option, or its not in the Schwartz set ever]

	3. Choose a winner from the Schwartz set

Does that make sense yet?


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgp7espcRVS5V.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: