On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:27:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <email@example.com> 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?" firstname.lastname@example.org | "Because we use vi, son. They use http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | emacs."
Description: Digital signature