Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

[moth@magenta.com]

> > In other words:
> 
> > [1] if the proposer of some ballot option chooses to ignore some popular
> > amendment

On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> "Popular" only in the sense that it expresses a view that is popular --
> not that the idea of replacing the ballot option with the amendment
> receives popular support.

Are you making a meaningful distinction here?  If so, I don't see it.

Popular means: can get enough votes to [be likely to] make a difference
on the ballot.  The distinction between a view that's popular and support
of the amendment which is popular doesn't seem to add anything meaningful
to the discussion.

> > [2] (and chooses not to provide an option which includes the most salient
> > points of both),
> 
> Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
> 
>    Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
>    produce a distribution."

Lines ^ through $ of what?  The social contract?  I can cheerfully
predict that that's not going to be popular.

And, any other interpretation of "Lines ^ through $" aren't going to be
meaningful on the ballot.

> Such an amendment would only exist to subvert the original purpose of
> the ballot, so there is no way to incorporate elements of it into the
> original proposer's ballot option.  In many procedural systems, this
> would nevertheless be considered an amendment, and our SRP does not
> *systemically* prevent such an interpretation.

Our resolution procedure doesn't systematically prevent wasted time.
What we spend our time on is up to us.

-- 
Raul