Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> >[b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture
>> >That option is likely to beat almost any proposed change to the
>> >Social Contract by a landslide -- *if people vote sincerely*.
>> But would it beat "Debian should retain support for the x86
>> architecture, and remove SC 5."
> This requires either the original proposer, or a group of 6 people,
> who support taking the original proposal and tacking this irrelevant
> rider onto it.
It also assumes that we have people not being team players.
Also, since there is obviously an error in procedure (since
these need to be separate votes, with separate discussion periods,
and separate voting periods, the secretary can step in and correct
> I won't say that we face a combinatorial explosion of irrelevant
> ballot options, because each one will have to have 6 sponsors and
> that will serve as a brake on *that* variety of abuse. But my
> thesis is that even one irrelevant option on the ballot is enough to
> either defeat the relevant option that would otherwise win, or
> promote the phenomenon of insincere voting.
It is also a procedural flaw. And the constitution has a fix
for matters of procedure.
Zeus gave Leda the bird.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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