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

Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying

> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:21:45AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > you, sir, are the one changing the meaning of of the word quorum. my
> > > amendment restores the meaning of quorum with respect to the Debian
> > > voting mechanism.
> > 
> > False.

On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 01:14:44PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> which part, that ``quorum'' is being redefined, or that my amendment
> fails to restore that definition?

There are a number of definitions of quorum.  Manoj's proposal and your
proposal works fine with the more flexible versions.  Neither Manoj's
proposal nor yours works with the more restricted versions.

Since you're currently discussing the rather restrictive oxford dictionary
definitions (which are based on the presence of some number of people),
let's focus on the fact that your proposal is not based on the concept
of presence.

> quorum
> 2. A fixed number of members of any body, society, etc., whose presence
>    is necessary for the proper or valid transaction of business.
> to give another example where physical location is not taken as part of
> quorum, our parent organisation, Software in the Public Interest holds
> its board meetings on an IRC channel. having a client connected to the
> IRC network, and participating in the channel where the meeting is
> taking place is sufficient to indicate presence.

Nevertheless, we do not use IRC to conduct our votes, thus we can't use
the analogy of a tcp connection to serve us as "presence".

> the proposed version says that in order to qualify as present, you have
> to agree with a particular option.  my amendment equates simply voting
> with presence for the purposes of meeting quorum.

Manoj's proposal says nothing of the sort.  The definition of
quorum relevant to Manoj's proposal is more like definition 2 at

Here, the group is "votes favoring the option over default", and each
option has its own quorum.

There's nothing in the definition of quorum which requires it be applied
to "the vote as a whole".  There's nothing in this definition of quorum
which requires that it be a "quorum of people" or that there be any
concept of "presence of people".

Options meeting quorum go through the process of condorcet resolution
to determine the winner of the vote.  But you already knew that.

> another example: DPL election, two candidates, R=45

Buddha already addressed this, so I'll stop here.


Reply to: