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

Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:35:34 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> said: 

> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:21:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR
>> > that consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because
>> > assuming rational voters I would expect the voters who approve of
>> > that option to be a strict superset of those who approve of my
>> > proposal, and I would call on the Project Secretary to exercise
>> > his authority to keep these two proposals on separate ballots to
>> > avoid prejudicing the outcome in favor of a "watered down"
>> > option.

>> Speaking with my secretary hat on, it seems to me that options 3
>> and 4 are somewhat orthogonal -- inasmuch that it appears eminently
>> reasonable for someone to have differing opinions on these two
>> options. So people may approve of 3, and disapprove of 4: and this
>> makes me think that they do not belong on the same ballot, since
>> they are unrelated wrt to voting (though obviously addressing
>> related areas)

> I agree that points 3 and 4 are potentially orthogonal, but I
> believe I have the right under the constitution to ask for the
> project to vote on a resolution that includes both of these points.
> If someone were to bring an amendment that eliminates point 4 while
> leaving the rest of the resolution intact and unchanged, those two
> ballot options would have orthogonal elements, and I would ask that
> they be treated on separate ballots so that voters have the
> opportunity to vote on this position statement per se without having
> to compete with ballot options that remove one of the axes of
> content.

        Condorcet does not do well with options with multiple axes of
 content.  If we have two orthogonal options, A an B, on a ballot,
 than the ballot becomes:
 1) No on A, No on B
 2) No on A, Yes on B
 3) Yes on A, no on B
 4) Yes on A, Yes on B
 5) Further discussion.

        Add any other axes, and the ballot rapidly becomes more

        I think we should only put an proposal and _related_ options
 on the same axis on each ballot, in order to offer fully nuanced
 choices to the voting populace.

        This also avoids the diluted proposal wins bit if some ballot
 option reduced the axes of content.

Tcl tends to get ported to weird places like routers. Larry Wall in
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: