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

Re: Final call for votes for the Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD voting methods GR

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:02:57 -0400, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> said: 

>>>>>> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
Manoj> Hi, In a little under 24 hours from now, at the time of
Manoj> writing, the polls shall close for the voting GR. The quorum
Manoj> has already been met, if you are interested.

> Wait, I thought quorum only mattered for the following yes/no vote,
> not for the vote with the options.  OR am I misunderstanding the old
> procedure?

	What options?

	This is not the 3.1 vote, as I have stated before: this is a
 3.2 vote where I messed up the ballot, and did not include the no

	Given that there was an error in the ballot, the question is
 how best to recover from it. It is generally agreed that people who
 vote for the ballot would not have put No first, if the no option had
 been there; people who would have voted for no ahead of the yes
 option would choose the further discussion option.

	This means that votes in opposition to the gr may have been
 split between no and further discussion, at worst. But if the GR wins
 the super majority in any case, then the absence of the No option
 would not have changed the outcome.

	If that is the case, I am loth to toss this vote out.

The CS Sage says: Seek new employment prior to the imposition of
performance penalties on your project.
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: