Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I doubt this applies to the Debian electorate nearly as much as the
> general population. However, even so, that means (given):
> Option A: strike SC 5
> Option B: trivial, editorial change
> Option C: A + B
> Option D: Further Discussion
> we're going to get the 'activists' voting CABD and the insecure voting
> BCAD. The insecure won't vote against (rank below default) the real
> changes if they like them. So, as long as there are sufficient
> 'activists', I conclude that C will still win.
BCAD is a silly way to vote, though. It says "The editorial changes
are very important to me, and I don't care much about SC5 one way or
the other; I'd prefer to keep SC5, but I'll accept SC5 getting dropped,
if that's what it takes to get the editorial changes passed."
Branden's fear of the system being gamed by adding orthogonal
amendments to the ballot is valid when the electorate doesn't
understand how the voting system works and what their vote really
means. I think that probably doesn't apply to the Debian
developers as a group.