On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said:
> 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.
Personally, I thought B was the only sane choice both constitutionally
and administratively. I preferred it avove all else because it was the
least ambigious and introduced the least change to the constitution. I
felt and still feel that the Foundation Document class is an awful idea,
that introduces a beurocratic complexity that our project does not need.
Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs.
I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A
over C. I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C
over A or avoided ranking either of them. I should have voted -1-2.
There definitely is a strategy to our voting method. Every rank counts
for something. Because someone deploys a strategy to their voting
choices does not mean they vote insincerely. I'm sincerely disappointed
in the outcome of the last GR, but I support the method in which it was
conducted.
If we can prove that the system has flaws, then let's fix them, or at
least minimize the problems through procedure.
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
Attachment:
pgpLzKiqgAJ79.pgp
Description: PGP signature