Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2003 14:27:53 -0400, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
2) Would an amendment to (a) to the following effect be acceptable
and
clear up nomenclature issues:
Replace A.6.2-4 in the proposed amendment with:
2. Procedural Definitions
a. V(A,B): For any options A and B, V(A,B) is defined as the number
of ballots cast that rank option A higher than option B
b. margin of A over B: The margin of A over B M(A,B) = V(A,B)-V(B,A)
Note that M(A,B) = -M(B,A)
c. defeats: For any options A and B, A defeats B if and
only if M(A,B) > 0
d. Acceptable: An option A other than the default option is
considered "acceptable" if and only if M(A,default) >= R,
where R is the "quorum requirement" for the vote.
This changes the meaning of Quorum as used by Debian. In
Debian, quorum is used to ensure there a modicum of interest in an
option -- so, if R people vote for an option, there is interest. It
does not matter how many people vote _against_ the option -- Quorum
is not used to ensure a margin of victory.
Ah... then I was confused. Replace "M(A,default) >= R" with
"V(A,default) >= R and M(A,default)>0"
The V(A,default >=R clause comes from your proposed A.6.2, and the
M(A,default)>0 clause comes from your proposed A.6.3.
If you meant to change the meaning of quorum, I must confess I
disagree.
My intent was to change none of the semantics of your proposal. My
initial intent was to change the terminology from "per-option quorum"
(which is subject to misunderstanding and confusion with the standard
"total votes cast quorum" concept) to "acceptability". Instead of
saying an option that only a small handful of people prefer to the
default does not meet quorum, we would say that such an option is not
acceptable to enough people.
e. Superacceptable: An option A with a supermajority
requirement of N:M is considered superacceptable if and
only if M*V(A,default) > N:V(default,A).
f. Pairwise defeat: A pairwise defeat is an ordered pair of
options (A, B) where A defeats B.
g. "weaker" A pairwise defeat (A,B) is considered weaker than
pairwise defeat (C,D) if V(A,B) < V(C,D)
3. Dropped options
a. Any non-default option A which is not acceptable is dropped
b. Any option A with a supermajority requirement which is not
superacceptable is dropped.
4. Create a list of all pairwise defeats (A,B), where neither A nor
B
are dropped, sorted by V(A,B).
with related changes elsewhere to use these definition.
So, to answer your question, no, I would not find this
acceptable for my version of the GR, for the reasons presented
above.
I understand that, since I messed up a crucial definition. Is the new
definition better?
manoj
