[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 04:19:25PM -0500, moth@magenta.com wrote:
> > > 	If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended.  There
> > >  would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > >  concurrently. 
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I'll give it very serious consideration, but first I would like some
> > guidance from you in the form of a reply to Message-ID:
> > <20031102100909.GW2495@deadbeast.net>.
> I'm not sure what you expect here.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00081.html
> Seems to posit that there is some specific number of ballots required
> to resolve the issue of people proposing amendments which do not
> incorporate text or ideas from the original proposal (or, perhaps, that
> you find discordant?).  And then you go on to ask what the value is for
> this number.

Huh?  I fear you have completely lost me.  Going back to earlier
messages in this thread:

A) Anthony DeRobertis says that we should have orthogonal choices on
   separate ballots.
B) Manoj points out that editorial changes to the Social Contract could
   be considered orthogonal to dropping clause 5 of the Social Contract.
   (For what it's worth, I agree.  I specifically distinguished
   "semantic" from "editorial" amendments in my original RFD.)
C) Anthony DeRobertis speculates that I'd be amenable to advocating that
   the editorial amendments be considered seperately from the semantic ones
   (specifically, the proposal to drop clause 5).
D) Manoj says it's up to me to suggest this, as it's my proposal.
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
   the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
   orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.

This sort of alteration to a proposed GR is, to my knowledge,
unprecedented in the brief history of our Standard Resolution Procedure,
so I don't feel unjustified in seeking the Project Secretary's guidance.
Moreover, the Project Secretary probably doesn't seek to construct a
ballots that the proposers of general resolutions are going to be
unhappy with.

> [1] Why is this an issue?

Because several people have expressed a desire to be able to state
disjunct preferences regarding the various severable parts of my
proposed GR?  At the same time there a concern over at least theoretical
abuses of the SRP seems to be developing.

> [2] Resolve how?

By identifying the number of orthogonal issues on my original RFD?

> [3] Why would you assume that anyone could associate any kind of number
> with such a vague problem statement?

What's vague about my original RFD?  While I'm cognizant of the fact
that I need to get back to people about various editorial changes
they've suggested, no one has even formally proposed any amendments yet.
Unless a lot more discussion starts happening, I have no reason to
suspect that my original proposed GR won't be pretty clearly
recognizable in the ballots it generates (assuming I see the procedure
through and request a CFV).

> [4] How does "number of ballots" shed any light on anything of any
> interest to anyone?

It tells us how many discrete issues have been raised as gives an
opportunity to vote our preferences on them independently of the others?

> More fundamentally: this whole thread devolves to some bogus "veto power"
> which does not exist, and therefore cannot be discussed in a rational
> fashion:

I don't even see where you're coming from with this.  What do you mean
by "veto power"?  What's bogus about the scenario I proposed in the
original message in this sub-thread?  There seem to be nothing that can
stop people from proposing such amendments and collecting the required

This "cannot be discussed in a rational fashion"?  That's a terribly
dismissive thing to say.  Do you feel I am incapable of discussing it
rationally, or is it that you do not wish to?

> Amendments do not dispose of the original proposal, except with the
> agreement of the proposer and seconds.

That doesn't rebut anything I've said in this discussion, as far as I
can tell.  In fact, I rely upon the fact.  My areas of interest have
primarily been the impact of "irrelevant" ballot options on the way
people order their preferences, whether such options tend to promote the
insincere ranking of preferences, and whether the insincere ranking of
preferences is thought to be a problem by the people who use the voting

It seems obvious to me that if an amendment could "dispose" of an
original proposal such that the original proposal did not even appear on
the ballot, then the original proposal would be cease being directly
relevant to the conduct of the vote; it would no longer be an option
that could be ranked preferentially, whether sincerely or not.

Consequently, I do not understand how your final statement rebuts
anything in particular.

G. Branden Robinson                |     Suffer before God and ye shall be
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     redeemed.  God loves us, so He
branden@debian.org                 |     makes us suffer Christianity.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Aaron Dunsmore

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: