On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:42:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:27:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:40 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > This requires either the original proposer, or a group of 6
>> > people, who support taking the original proposal and tacking this
>> > irrelevant rider onto it.
>>
>> It also assumes that we have people not being team players.
> Isn't this a resonable assumption, given the frequency with which
> you accuse me (for example) of all sorts of moral failings and bad
> behavior?
>> Also, since there is obviously an error in procedure (since these
>> need to be separate votes, with separate discussion periods, and
>> separate voting periods, the secretary can step in and correct the
>> procedure.
> On what (constitutional) grounds?
A.2.3
However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the
Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4).
A.3.4.
In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
procedure.
>> > I won't say that we face a combinatorial explosion of irrelevant
>> > ballot options, because each one will have to have 6 sponsors and
>> > that will serve as a brake on *that* variety of abuse. But my
>> > thesis is that even one irrelevant option on the ballot is enough
>> > to either defeat the relevant option that would otherwise win, or
>> > promote the phenomenon of insincere voting.
>>
>> It is also a procedural flaw. And the constitution has a fix for
>> matters of procedure.
> Well, yes, we can amend it. Or did you have something else in mind?
See above.
manoj
--
If we all work together, we can totally disrupt the system.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
