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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 
> > > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> > > personal attack.  How else is one to interpret "you are really
> > > contributing to infighting and intractability" and "you do not know
> > > how to be a team player"?  Are they in some way complimentary, or do
> > > they somehow provide insight into our Standard Resolution Procedure?

> > 	If you are voting insencerely, and delibrately using majority
> >  to defeat options that are not preferred, you are short sighted, not
> >  a team player, and contributing to infighting and intractability.

> Not necessarily.  A person who ranks their preferences insincerely might
> simply feel they're using the system the way it was designed to be used.

> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above any
> of the other options was voting sincerely.

> I say this because the issue had dragged on for three years, we had a
> healthy discussion period, and I don't recall that any other
> interpretations or clarifications were raised.  (I.e., there were no
> proposed amendments that didn't acquire sufficient seconds to appear on
> the ballot.)

Erm, I voted for 'further discussion' above the option of requiring
supermajority for the SC and not the DFSG; because while I was somewhat
undecided on the question of whether a supermajority was warranted, I
couldn't think of any justification for the supermajority requirement
that wouldn't apply equally to both documents, and don't believe such an
inconsistent policy should be enacted without further discussion.

> Instead, I find it more likely that people who ranked further discussion
> above any of the other options did so simply to disadvantage options
> they disfavored, and that they didn't actually prefer, say, another
> three years of discussion and delay.

I don't recall seeing an option on the ballot labeled "Three more years
of discussion and delay" -- only one labelled "Further discussion".

> Since the ballot encouraged people to do that very thing[1], one could
> easily argue that people who vote that way are doing exactly what the
> system intends them to do.

Which hardly seems like an example of insincere voting to me.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpRseAFVc3TU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: