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

Re: In plain English please?! Re: General resolution: Changes to the Standard Resolution Procedure

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 04:49:08PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Hello,
> On 31 August 2015 at 08:06, Kurt Roeckx - Debian Project Secretary
> <secretary@debian.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A new GR has been started to update the Standard Resolution
> > Procedure.  Details about it can be found on:
> > https://www.debian.org/vote/2015/vote_002
> >
> I'm failing to understand the current situation, nor proposed changes.
> Can someone please give a plain English explanation and/or examples?
> E.g. committee of size N is voting on an issue I which happens to be
> overriding developer. The votes are F for, A against, S abstentions.
> Previously this would fail, now this will pass.

One of the problems, and I consider that to be the most important
one, is about the stratigic vote that you can do.  For example,
condiser that there are 2 options (A and B) plus the default option
All options are acceptable for everybody, but 75% prefer A
and 25% prefer B.  You would except the following vote:
75%: 123
25%: 213

Option A would win as expected.

If there is a 3:1 majority requirement, you could instead vote:
75%: 123
25%: 312

As in, the 2nd group says that option A is not acceptable while in
fact it was.

This results in the option A being dropped because it does not
reach majority.  75% say A acceptable and 25% say it's not resulting
in a 3:1 majority saying it's acceptable.  The 75% just don't
reach the "strictly greater" than the 3:1 majority requirement.

In the end option B wins because of stratigic voting, while if
they were honest option A would have won.

The solution to this problem is moving the majority check later
in the process, so that option B would have been dropped first.
If they did this stratigic voting in that case both options would
have been dropped.


Reply to: