Re: meta-issue: interpreting the outcome of the pending vote
Scripsit Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 2a) Constitution A.6.8 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?
I think it would be wholly infeasible to try to construct a ballot
that would allow simultaneous winners.
For example, if I get to vote (which, given the current length of the
DAM queue, does not seem extremely likely), I would want exactly one
of the options A, B, C and E to pass, so I would rank each of them
higher than "further discussion". However, I would not be happy with
having C and E pass simultaneously, even though they do not formally
conflict with each other. Therefore I wouldn't like a tallying method
that implied that C and E could win simultaneously simply because each
of them beat "Further discussion" with the required supermajority.
As far as I can see, the only ones of the current proposals it really
makes sense to implement simultaneously is Manoj's "Transition Guide"
document together with one of the ones that change the Social Contract
either permanently or temporarily. I would not personally support such
simulataneity, but a reasonable person would be able to think, "let's
have a clear and unambigous fix in the SC, plus Manoj's idea to
prevent trouble in the future".
However, I think such a person would be happy with ranking one of the
SC options first , and then, if it turns out the the current vote
ends in a (permanent or temporary) change to the SC, re-propose the
"Transition Guide" to be voted on separately. In that case, the
re-proposal would be effectively decoupled from the needs of the Sarge
release and could follow a timeline of its own.
This plan will be much less complex and confusing, for the voters as
well as for the votetaker. Essentially, voters who would like two
proposals to be enacted should consider themselves asked: Which of
these proposals hurry the most right now?
 I am assuming that those who sees Manoj's proposal as a *better*
solution than amending the Social Contract again, would not have any
interest in a dual-win outcome at all. They will, of course, rank E over
everything else and be happy with that.
Henning Makholm "Anything you can discover we
would be most happy to review."