[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 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.

No, it wouldn't. If the options are:

	Branden's Proposal
	Editorial changes only
	No changes

and people prefer:

	Editorial defeats No by 300:20
	Editorial defeats Branden's by 170:150
	Branden's defeats No by 170:150

then there's nothing inappropriate about Editorial changes only being what
happens -- the majority of developers think that's the right thing to do.

(Example votes for the above outcome:
	[321] x20
	[213] x20
	[312] x130
	[123] x150

We've already been over this.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
	-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda

Attachment: pgpbXA7zTjhmu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: