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

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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?

I believe so.

> 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?

We search the dead horses to beat on again, then propose new GRs
and vote on them.  Or we release sarge with the policy Anthony
described.  (whatever happens first, err... whatever...)

> 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.

I'm not sure we would be able to implement more then one GR.  For
that maybe we need five separate ballots?

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
No question is too silly to ask, but, of course, some are too silly
to answer.   -- Perl book