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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:14:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	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
>  idiots.

Is it really necessary to call people "sheep" and "dumb idiots" if
they simple follow the ballot instructions as written?

Let's review the final call for votes for the 4.1.5 disambiguation:

  In the brackets next to your most preferred choice, place a 1. Place a
  2 in the brackets next to your next most preferred choice. Do not
  enter a number smaller than 1 or larger than 4. You may rank options
  equally (as long as all choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 4).

This tells people to vote "sincerely", i.e., to rank their sincere

  To vote "no, no matter what" rank "Further Discussion" as more
  desirable than the unacceptable choices, or you may rank the "Further
  Discussion" choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable
  blank. Unranked choices are considered equally least desired choices,
  and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the "Further
  Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
  choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the "Further
  Discussion" choice by the voting software).

People are not told to rank ballot options they like below "Further
Discussion" because they happen to be irrelevant to the issue being
voted on.  While the examples I've used are blatantly obvious examples
of irrelevancy, it does not stand to reason that could never be more
subtle irrelevant amendments proposed.

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

But that's not quite the point -- especially in the case of votes where
the required majority ratio is 2:1 or 3:1.  Should a GR *really* have to
satisfy a majority requirement of 4:1 or 5:1 instead, thanks to the
disruptive activities of a small group of developers (half a dozen)?  Is
that just the way the cookie crumbles, or should we try to engineer our
SRP so that it works as advertised?

> 	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.

Is there a rational basis for this speculative invective somewhere?

G. Branden Robinson                |     Communism is just one step on the
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     long road from capitalism to
branden@debian.org                 |     capitalism.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Russian saying

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: