Re: April 17th Draft of the Voting GR
>> On 18 Apr 2003 00:42:44 -0400,
>> Anthony DeRobertis <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
Most of these seem to be style issues, I'll comment inline.
> On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 10:57, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
>> results are not revealed during the voting period; after the vote
>> the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast.
> "Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed until the voting
> period is over."
I see little difference between "during the voting period" and
"until the voting period is over."; indeed, the former is shorter,
and no more ambiguous.
> "Votes, tallies, and results are revealed only when the voting
> period is over."
More verbose, yes, but not necessarily more clear.
>> The voting period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by
>> the Project Leader, and may be ended by the Project Secretary when
>> the outcome is no longer in doubt.
> "when the outcome" -> "if the outcome". According m-w.com, "if" is
> more used for "in the event that" than when.
Style issue. When is more correct, since we are talking about
a variable point in time, not talking about an outcome at some fixed
point in time. "may be ended by the secretary whenever the outcome .."
is how I think about it.
> "The voting period lasts one to three weeks as decided by the
> Project Leader. The Project Secretary may end it if the outcome is
> no longer in doubt."
As I said, I think when is the better choice here.
>> In this context, we ignore the possibility that people might want
>> to change their vote.
>> Under 6.1 Powers [of the technical committee], change item 7 to
>> 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
> "the commitee votes" --- otherwise, this sentence has no predicate.
> Considering the "vote ... for any fellow committee member" below, I
> think the "All members ... nominated" above should just be struck.
I think the voting GR is trying to make the minimal changes to
the constitution to fix the voting process, and not do a general
rewrite of the language of the constitution.
>> starting 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
> /me curses at lack of proper gender-neutral pronouns, notes that
> should be "including himself". Or "oneself" if its a particularly
> British day.
> Also, I suggest striking fellow --- it conflicts with "including
> (insert pronoun[s] here)."
Well, yes, but I think minimal change over-weighs this lacuna.
>> there is no default option. The vote finishes when all the members
>> have voted or when the outcome is no longer in doubt. The result
>> is determined using the method specified in section A.6 of the
>> Standard Resolution Procedure.
>> Replace A.3 with:
>> A.3. Voting procedure
>> 1. Each resolution and its related amendments is voted on in a
> s/is voted/are voted/
Each resolution _is_ voted upon. Each resolution (and
associated stuff) _is_ voted upon. Each -- _is_.
>> single ballot, that includes an option for the original
> Strike the comma.
>> resolution, each amendment, and the default option (where
> Typo: Two periods at end of sentence.
>> 2. The default option must not have any supermajority
>> Options which do not have an explicit supermajority requirement
>> have a 1:1 majority requirement.
>> 3. The votes are counted according to the the rules in A.6.
>> Unless otherwise specified, the default option is "Further
> Move "unless otherwise specified" to the end of the sentence; is is
> confusing right now. It appears to refer to the previous sentence,
> but actually doesn't.
Umm. There is a period at the end of the previous
sentence. However, I see no harm in shifting the sentence around.
>> 4. In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters
>> of procedure.
>> Replace A.6 with:
>> 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. Details of how ballots may be filled out
> s/may be/are/
No. Instructions do not tell you how the ballots are filled
out -- this is not soviet russia ;-). I think may be is a better fit
>> will be included in the Call For Votes.
>> 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other
> quorum requirement, R, ...
> maybe: option, A, ... default option, D, ...
> ratio, N, ...
Style issue. We did have the comma style at one point, and
discarded it for the current version, which does tend to flow
>> is less than V(B,Y). Also, (A,X) is weaker than (B,Y) if V(A,X)
>> is equal to V(B,Y) and V(X,A) is greater than V(Y,B).
>> b. A weakest defeat is a defeat that has no other defeat
>> weaker than it. There may be more than one such defeat.
>> 6. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then the
>> 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
> s/with a/with the/
Less is more or less more Y_Plentyn on #LinuxGER
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C