Re: Draft GR for resolution process changes
Hi Russ,
Le Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 08:22:47AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Some of the objections that I've seen after recent GRs to complex ballots
> are actually objections to relying on the clone-proof nature of the voting
> system, or arguments that because of human psychology it's not really
> clone-proof because people get confused. I admit to being somewhat
> dubious of those arguments (they're often based on the supposed
> unreasonableness of voting patterns that I find entirely reasonable and
> rational), but, more to the point for this proposal, I think I'm going to
> plead "out of scope" for the changes that I'm trying to make. I don't
> think this alteration of the process will make the problem of having too
> many ballot options any worse (and hopefully the above is a convincing
> argument for why I feel that way), and I'd rather leave trying to make it
> better as a subject for another GR.
Thank you for your convincing explanation. Maybe sometimes the most
confusing part is not the ballot itself, but contradicting opinions
expressed on the debian-vote mailing list and elsewhere about what would
be the consequences of ranking option X over option Y…
Also, in the meantime I remembered of the 2014 GR where I proposed to
add the "No GR is needed" option to the ballot, that ended up being the
winning option. This is an example of "more is better" that I did not
consider when writing my previous email.
One last question: in some complex GRs there were discussions about
problems caused by mixing 1:1 and 3:1 majority options, which frankly
speaking I could not undertand because I never studied our Condorcet
method in details. Do you think that such mixes can be problemating
and does your proposal address that ?
Have a nice day,
Charles
--
Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from work, https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy
Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
Reply to: