On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:00:41PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > the proposal brings the Quorum voting method back to the Condorcet > standard, For reference, "back to the Condorcet standard" is not what we want here. The default option allows allows us to combine condorcet preferential voting, with an approval-vote style calculation of majorities or acceptability. > while ensuring that a few developers (less that R) cannot make > any ``stealth decisions''. Likewise, the quorum requirement is made on a per-option basis specifically to ensure that there's no bias in the system -- that is, there's no incentive not to vote for an option you like, because that would in any way make it more likely for an option you dislike to win. For reference, my only quibbles with the draft are in the wording of: A.6(3) - "non-default" should probably be dropped from the brackets for clarity A.6(5) - transitive defeats doesn't make reference to the list of pairwise defeats A.6(5) - "[undropped]" is undefined, and the meaning of the square brackets is also unclear A.6(6) - "defeats within the Schwartz set" isn't limited to undropped defeats A.6 - the RATIONALE isn't particularly clear in its intent. it could probably be rephrased either as "ADVICE TO VOTERS" or "If you vote <in this way> <this is what the outcome will be>." See also my mail <20030423063600.GB6141@azure.humbug.org.au> (Subject: Re: April 23rd Draft; Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:36:00 +1000) and Manoj's comments in response. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <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!''
Description: PGP signature