On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:50:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de> said: > > > Hi, > > Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of > >> providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent, > >> how can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable, and are > >> voting honestly, from people who would consider A acceptable, but > >> are lying to give B an edge? > > > By providing them with a voting system which allows them to express > > their preferences adequately so that they don't _have_ to lie, if > > they want their true preferences to be considered fairly. Most other > > voting systems simply can't do that. > > If someone can come with one, great. However, not allowing me > to express "I truly do not care if C passes or no" (ranking C == rank > of default option), or not allowing me to express the fact that I > truly find B unacceptable are clearly not solutions; and those are > the initiatives I was protesting against. > > > 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 > in). Seconded. It's probably good to try to avoid confusing things with 'quorum', since it's clear that it has caused some confusion, and since the tradition of the term (at least in all cases I'm personally familiar with) do in fact imply (if only to me) a neutral count (all voters present, or all votes cast, whether the vote be an abstention, for, or against). -- Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgpX_wslX3jF4.pgp
Description: PGP signature