Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:03:29AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > Err, if there are three choices (your proposal, editorial-only, and further
> > discussion), and the Condorcet ballots show that more people preferred
> > editorial-only over your proposal, doesn't that mean that more people
> > preferred editorial-only over your proposal?
> The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred
> Branden's proposal over doing nothing at all, in which case it would be
> inappropriately defeated.
Such people would prefer Branden's proposal over the editorial-only
version, right? We'd have four options on the ballot:
A. Semantic changes
B. Editorial changes
C. Both A and B
D. Further discussion
It would indeed not make sense without option C. At least one of the
options must be the combination of changes that Branden actually
If you put orthogonal amendments on one ballot then you risk
getting a combinatorial explosion of options, but that can be
avoided by waiting for people to actually propose the combinations
they support and approve of. That way we don't bother people with
options nobody wants.