Hi Ian, On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:20:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > The intent of this change is that if the Condorcet(CSSD) winner does > not meet the supermajority requirement, it is still the winning > outcome of the whole vote, but only as a non-binding statement of > opinion. > > So for example, suppose in a TC vote we have: > > A "we overrule the maintainer [6.1(4)]: this patch to comply with > policy must must be applied" > > B "we set policy [6.1(1)]: the policy is wrong and must be changed" > > and votes are 5x A,B,FD 2x B,FD,A I interpret that as: 5x "I think we should overrule the maintainer; but if we don't, then at least updating policy to match reality is an acceptable compromise". 2x "We should update policy; overruling the maintainer is the worst possible outcome, and I'd rather do nothing than see that happen". > The overall Condorcet winneer is A but only by a 5:2 majority, so the > TC does not overrule. Right. > With the existing rules A is eliminated early, leaving B the Condorcet > winner. This is a bizarre outcome: the winning option was disfavoured > by 5/7ths of the TC ! However, on the other hand, it is the *only* outcome (in your example) of which all voters agree that it would a preferable outcome to that of restarting the whole process. That is also an important outcome of that vote; it is, to all involved, an acceptable compromise position. > With the new scheme, A is the Condorcet winner (the `prospective > winner' in the wording proposed in the GR text). But it fails its > supermajority. > > So `prospective winning resolution text becomes a non-binding > statement of opinion'. Ie, the TC is treated as having said: > > A' "we advise [6.1(5)]: we disagree with the maintainer; this patch > to comply with policy should be applied" > > This makes a lot more sense as an outcome. If the maintainer has previously said that he thinks A is the worst possible option and *all* of the TC agrees that updating policy to match reality is, at least, an acceptable compromise (as in this example), then option A will most likely result in "nothing happens" (i.e., "further discussion"), whereas option B would have produced a (suboptimal) resolution. > The maintainer can continue to diregard the disputed policy, because > the TC hasn't mustered the certainty needed to overrule the > maintainer; but, the policy is not altered. I'm not sure why "accepting the compromise position as the winner" is in any way an undesirable outcome to you. In effect, having a non-binding "winner" outcome is hardly different from having "further discussion" discussion win the vote (precisely because it's not binding). In your example, *all* voters have said that they prefer B over FD. I fail to see how your suggested scheme is an improvement. -- It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer -- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature