Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

["Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org>]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
 > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
 > > Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
 > >    Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
 > >    produce a distribution."
 > 
 > Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or
 > replace the text of the resolution with that?

 Gosh.  Have you been reading the thread you are replying to?  By now it
 should be obvious (to anyone paying even only half attention) what
 Steve meant.

 The question is simple: "is there really a hole in the voting system
 and is it exploitable?"  Branden thinks there is one (and until now
 noone seems to have said otherwise -- unless I missed the message in
 the noise, that is and modulo Manoj who's said he's going to manually
 handle each attack) and that it is in fact open to exploits, if you are
 determined enough to do so.

 > > And the Project Secretary has indicated he would use his
 > > Constitutional power to prevent orthogonal ballot options from
 > > being voted on together, to thwart any such attempts to subvert the
 > > system.  Which reduces the scope of this vulnerability to "How you,
 > > the Project Secretary, and four of your friends can kill any GR."
 > > :)
 > 
 > Options that say nothing other than "We'll keep doing what we've always
 > done", whether that be "maintaining a distribution" or "supporting i386"
 > are just explicit "status quo" options by another name. There's nothing
 > interesting here.

 Grrr...

-- 
Marcelo