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

meta-issue: interpreting the outcome of the pending vote

I have some questions:

1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority
requirement, it is the same as "FURTHER DISCUSSION", right?
Constitution A.6.3[1] seems to imply "yes".

1a) If so, what do we do?  Is Anthony Towns's interpretation of the
Social Contract and its bindingness upon the sarge release
*uncontroversially* the status qup?

1b) If not, what do we do?

2) Are we seeking only one "winner" in this pending GR?  The Condorcet
Method (with Cloneproof/SSD) is easily capable of showing us the most
favored M of N choices.  The last round of SPI Board elections worked
this way; there were three vacancies and several candidates; the 3 most
preferred candidates under the Condorcet method filled the seats.

2a) Constitution A.6.8[1] strongly implies that the answer to 2) is
"yes".  Is it wise to have our SRP bind us to only one of several
possible outcomes?  Should we amend the Constitution to allow running an
election with multiple winners, or is it felt this is not necessary,
since approving M of N choices is thought to only be applicable to
electing personnel, and we have no election process for anything apart
from the solitary office of Project Leader?

2b) If the answer to 2) is "no", whose responsibility is it to reconcile
any conflicts between multiple "winners"?

[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution

G. Branden Robinson                |     I'm a firm believer in not drawing
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     trend lines before you have data
branden@debian.org                 |     points.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Tim Ottinger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: