Re: electing multiple people

[Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net>]

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 01:38:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> I've had enough bad experiences with committees and groups in the past
> >> that I've developed a deep dislike of voting or nomination systems that
> >> don't take into account the ability of the chosen slate to work with
> >> each other.
> 
> > That argument makes sense for technical groups, where accomplishing a
> > clearly defined task is the primary mission, but this is supposed to be
> > the basis for electing the first ever social committee, which doesn't
> > have a straightforward mission (or at least, we're inventing the mission
> > ad hoc :).
> 
> Hm, my experience is that this is *way* more important for social groups
> than it is for technical groups.  Now, if one is electing essentially a
> legislature, where each member is expected to vote and work independently,
> it's not as big of a problem.  But if the group is ever expected to work
> by consensus or common ground, this sort of voting system is, IMO, a huge
> problem.

I don't get it. Isn't the point of "consensus" to get agreement from an
entire group, or at least the entire relevant part of the group? If we use
a voting system that aims to eliminate conflicting options, and instead have
a small set of compatible options win, then that's not really aiming for
a consensus, it's just aiming for a majority.

If the social committee represents only the majority, it instantly loses
credibility, and in Debian, that would pretty much be its ruin.

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.