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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:45:35AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > > > I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General
> > > > Resolution.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't it be better to separate the editorial changes from the
> > > conceptual changes and vote on two orthogonal proposals?
> > > 
> > > Apart from this, I think your proposal looks good.

> > Thanks for your support, but I did consider what you propose, and I
> > disagree.

> > I am not planning to do that because our voting mechanism has no means
> > of declaring two winners.  It is easy for me to imagine that both
> > proposals would pass by the required majority, but the editorial-only
> > one would be the Condorcet winner because it would garner more votes
> > (presumably because it would be less controversial).

> Just make it two separate votes. One for the editorial changes, which
> everyone should agree one mostly, and then the second about the
> conceptual changes. 

> Or maybe a single vote with an option with only the editorial changes,
> and another with the conceptual changes + the editorial changes.

Actually, I disagree with one of the editorial changes (on-line ->
online), but I haven't found any semantic changes in the proposal that I
think I disagree with.  I haven't decided yet if I care about the
editorial change enough to vote against the GR. ;P

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpSBOcqIxpJk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: