[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 10:27:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 
> > 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.

Isn't this a resonable assumption, given the frequency with which you
accuse me (for example) of all sorts of moral failings and bad behavior?

> 	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
>  the procedure. 

On what (constitutional) grounds?

> > 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.

Well, yes, we can amend it.  Or did you have something else in mind?

G. Branden Robinson                |     "Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      police, Daddy?"
branden@debian.org                 |     "Because we use vi, son.  They use
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      emacs."

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: