On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:15:09AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:03:29AM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote: > > Err, if there are three choices (your proposal, editorial-only, and further > > discussion), and the Condorcet ballots show that more people preferred > > editorial-only over your proposal, doesn't that mean that more people > > preferred editorial-only over your proposal? > > The problem is that it may also be the case that more people preferred > Branden's proposal over doing nothing at all, in which case it would be > inappropriately defeated.
Such people would prefer Branden's proposal over the editorial-only version, right? We'd have four options on the ballot: A. Semantic changes B. Editorial changes C. Both A and B D. Further discussion It would indeed not make sense without option C. At least one of the options must be the combination of changes that Branden actually advocates. If you put orthogonal amendments on one ballot then you risk getting a combinatorial explosion of options, but that can be avoided by waiting for people to actually propose the combinations they support and approve of. That way we don't bother people with options nobody wants. Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
