Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD votetallying
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > This whole discussion tells me that the original proposal (with
> > Manoj's s/quorum/.../ change, for consistency) should be up to that
> > task.
> Cool. All we need is the other sponsors to agree (though I
> agree with the rationale behind the change, I do not feel strongly
> enough to have to go through and campaign for a new set of sponsors;
> if 5 of the original sponsors agree to the changes, I'll put them
speaking only for myself, of course, i believe that such a change would
lend clarity to the proposal. i cannot say that i _would_ second such a
proposal, because i still feel that the mucking about with Condorcet/
Cloneproof SSD to do double duty is less than ideal.
unfortunately, i have no good ideas as to how to ``solve'' this
``problem.'' no one else either cares, or has any ideas either.