Kurt Roeckx dijo [Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 07:00:40PM +0200]: > > > It's my current interpretation that all voting options, even if they > > > might conflict with the DSC, will be on the ballot, and might not > > > require a 3:1 majority. That is, I don't think the Secretary can decide > > > not to include an option that might conflict, or put a 3:1 majority > > > requirement on it because they think it conflicts. > > > > > > However, if an option that might conflict wins, the Secretary might > > > have to decide if it conflicts or not, and if it conflicts void the > > > GR. > > I'm having trouble reconciling the two positions of "[not] put a 3:1 > > majority requirement on it because...it conflicts" and "it conflicts void > > the GR". > > I think that the Secretary when running a vote should just follow the > procedures for the vote. There is no text saying that the Secretary > should make sure that the option is valid. If there are enough people > to put an option on the ballot, the Secretary should put that option > on the ballot, even when it's clearly invalid. The Secretary can of > course say that they think it's not a valid option, and what might need > to change for it to be, but I think it should be on the ballot even > when not valid. We can still deal with it being not valid if it ends > up winning. Yes. But the Secretary is far from a robot. I absolutely expect the Secretary to inform the project if an option is likely to be "problematic" in a way that puts us in a position similar to what we lived after vote 2004/vote_003 (Editorial amendments to the social contract). So if you doubt on the compatibility between our Foundation Documents and any of the options... Please do communicate it to us, sooner rather than later. > > The only way I can see to reconcile your positions is if a GR is not allowed > > to supersede a Foundation Document by implication, but must do so > > explicitly. Is that your rationale? > > I have not made any decision about this yet, but if asked, will most > likely say so. > > It's at least a reason why an option might not be valid. I hope you can come to (and communicate) this decision, at least, before you call for votes. > > Regardless of that, and probably more importantly, I object to the idea that > > a GR option winning could result in the whole GR being voided. Our voting > > system is explicitly designed to take into account supermajority > > requirements. A GR option failing a supermajority requirement should fail by > > itself, not take down the whole GR with it. > > I'm not sure it's a good idea to reinterpret the results with that > option removed. I think if an option wins and is later determine not > to be valid, the GR should just be done again. This is a valid interpretation, and I'm happy you have explicitly interpreted your reading of your role in the open stating it. Even though the Condorcet voting system should be OK with having one of the options removed (the preferences of all other options do not change), it is a valid reading -- and completely within your powers. - Gunnar.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature