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

Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft



Hello Manoj,

the new draft looks good to me.  I only found some stylistic issues.

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:18:23AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Under 4.2 Procedure [for developers during a general resolution or
> election], change item 3 to read:
> 
>     3. ..., and may be ended by the Project Secretary when
>        enough voters have voted that even if every remaining voter
>        voted in opposition to the winner the outcome would remain the
>        same.
The term "vote in opposition to the winner" looks suboptimal to me.
Consider the case of many candidates.  Maybe we could write something
along the lines of "... when the missing votes cannot change the result
anymore"?

> Replace A.3 with:
> 
>   A.3. Voting procedure
>     [...]
>     3. The votes are counted according to the the rules in A.6.
>        Unless otherwise specified, the default option is Further
>        Discussion.
I suggest quotes around "Further Discussion".


>   A.5. Expiry
> 
>    ... If none of the sponsors of any
>    of the proposals object within a week, the issue is withdrawn.
                     ^^^^^^^
                      objects (?)

>    A.6 Vote Counting
>     [...]
>      2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement (Q) any options other
                                                 ^^^
                                               see below
>         than the default option which do not receive at least Q votes
>         ranking that option above the default option are dropped from
>         consideration.
>      3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
>         by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
>         a. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters
>            who prefer option A over option B.
>         b. An option, A, defeats the default option, D, by a ratio, N,
                       ^^^                                    ^^^^^^^
                     see below                              majority ratio
>            if V(A,D) is strictly greater than N * V(D,A).
>         c. If a supermajority of S:1 is required for A, it's majority ratio
>            is S, otherwise it's majority ratio is 1.
>      4. We construct the Schwartz set based on undropped options and
>         defeats:
>            a. An option A defeats an option B, if V(A,B) is strictl
                       ^^^^^                                  ^^^^^^^
		       see below			      strictly

>               greater than V(B,A).

About the three places marked above:  I think we should increase
stylistic consistency by just writing "quorum requirement Q",
and "option A" in place of the three variants above.

I hope this helps,
Jochen
-- 
                                         Omm
                                      (0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/index.html

Attachment: pgpeLwa3wJPD0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: