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

Re: meta-issue: interpreting the outcome of the pending vote

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:29:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority
> requirement, it is the same as "FURTHER DISCUSSION", right?


> 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?

In that hypothetical scenario, apparently so.

Given the number of people who voted for the last SC change who
have since said they would vote differently, I think this is a
rather unlikely outcome.

> 1b) If not, what do we do?

Talk about what we have learned and use that to try for a better outcome.

> 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.

True, but the voting mechanism we agreed to still has us picking
a single winner.

There are a number of ambiguities which could arise with multiple
winners, and it's possible to create ballot options which combine
"potential winners" into a single option for the cases where this
is meaningful.

> 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.

That makes sense -- if we had a number of slots to fill, it would be
reasonable to have multiple winners.  This is independent of whether
we had a specific number of slots to fill or some undetermined number
to fill.

However, in our current constitution, we only have one leader.

> 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?



Reply to: