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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:55:42 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 

> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:34:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough
>> consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you
>> are effectively rejecting the possibility that that option could be
>> a valid solution to whatever we are voting for.  Vetoing solutions
>> is not a great way to achieve consensus; but consensus is not
>> something that can be forced.

> Part of the point of this sub-thread is to determine whether or not
> there is an effective veto power available to a much smaller
> minority of the voters than was intended even by our supermajority
> requirements.

> Hence "(Or: How You and Five of Your Friends Can Kill Any GR)".

	It assumes the electorate is sheep.

	If you attach a non germane amendment to a GR with a stated
 name, people are going to vote against it -- unless they are dumb

	So, if there are enough people who prefer a GR, no amount of
 silly amendments is going to prevent the option from reaching

	Of course, in your workd view, I must eb a dastardly rat all
 ready to spring bunches of irrelevant amendments to any Robinson GR,
 and that must be the only reason I must be arguing against the
 protector against ossification.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to
hold it down, and one to rip its head off.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: