On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:17:05AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:07:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > "Status-quo" means don't resolve *anything*. There are at most two
> > ways of doing that: by doing nothing, and not even discussing the
> > matter again, and by doing nothing constructive, but continuing to
> > flame each other. I personally don't think that's a distinction
> > that'll be successfully determined by a vote, though.
> I disagree.
> Status-quo in the context of supermajority means don't do anything that
> requires supermajority. That can still leave a lot of options.
Well, you're welcome to disagree, but be aware that your definition
doesn't match the way the current system (the N+1 votes) works, and
doesn't match the way most systems work (which only provide "No, don't
resolve this" as a `status-quo' option).
Biassing the results towards options that don't require a supermajority
doesn't seem a particularly useful thing to do to me [0].
Cheers,
aj
[0] I say "biassing" since if you take a vote where you have two options:
* Modify social contract (M) (requires 3:1 supermajority)
* Do nothing (N)
and M has unanimous support over N, and then add a third option:
* Evade constitution (E)
(which would resolve that, say, "No new .debs will be added to
non-free, and wherever possible .debs already there will be removed"),
which is preferred over N by everyone, but preferred over M by just
over a quarter of the voters, it'd win.
This isn't what would happen in the current system (E would be
dismissed when deciding on the form of the resolution), and isn't,
IMO, a reasonable outcome at all.
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
PGP signature
