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

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proot SSD voting methodsGR

> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
> > some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
> > the information I need to make an informed decision.  After all they
> > are trying to convince me to support their option.  If they do not,
> > and I care about the issue, I may well vote and rank additional
> > discussion above all options.

On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 07:53:54PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> That's my feelings exactly. I never felt that information was provided,
> so I voted for further discussion.

*How* you voted, of course, is your perogative.  However, I really don't
know what information it is that you want to know which "wasn't provided".

Given that any flaws in the system can only be revealed by inspection --
not by proponents summarizing how they see the option -- it's not at
all clear to me why you expected any relevant information to just drop
in your lap.

Given that I put forth quite a number of hours answering people's
questions, I'm a bit disappointed that you weren't able to phrase your
questions in a useful fashion -- but I understand, also, that you might
have good reasons for this.

In any event, the offer I made in response to Sam Hartman really does
apply to other people as well: if you have unanswered questions, please
ask them.

> On a related note, I'm a little bothered about the result. Obviously
> 144:16 was a win. But only 160 people voted, at most 20% of developers and
> probably more like 15%. And voted to change the constitution at that.
> And according to the secretary's announcement, only 42.53 votes were
> required, or 5%! Still, that's what the constitution says.

Yes, that's what the constitution says, and there's a reason for that.

Since this might be one of the issues you have a question about:

The constitution is designed to reflect Debian's existing practices.
One of those practices is -- on many issues there's a subset of people
with the time and energy and interest to take part in resolving the issue.
Given that so many of our issues are technical in nature, given that
we're a volunteer organization with varying demands on our time, given
that interest usually correlates rather well with a willingness to be
informed, and given that this is basically how we've always done things,
a simplified codification of this concept has been incorporated in the
constitution from the start.

Note that the authority we grant to package developers is a variation
on this concept.  [Does that also concern you?]



Reply to: