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

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

On Mon, 26 May 2003 13:42:03 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de> said: 

> Hi,
> Guido Trotter wrote:
>> If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no
>> problem with the proposed system, why not add to the current
>> proposal the fact that the votes cast, altogether, have to be at
>> least 2*quorum? This will also ensure that, before taking a vote
>> into consideration, there is enough general intrest about the
>> issue...

> The problems start when there is not enough general interest but
> something should be done regardless.

	There are other mechanisms in place for us to do things which
 need to be done, and a general resolution is a bad means of doing it.

> For example, let's say we have a technical problem which affects
> many packages, and the alternatives are C- do nothing D- further
> discussion (i.e. the default option) B- implement a workaround A-
> fix the problem "correctly", which affects a lot of programs, is a
> policy change, whatever

	Voting is a bad way to solve technical problems; and we don't;
 we also have a project leader that can act when action _must_ be

	If there is not enough general interest, then there would be
 no protests when the DPL or tech ctte act, no?

No sooner said than done -- so acts your man of worth. Quintus Ennius
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <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

Reply to: