On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > > I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General > > Resolution. > > Wouldn't it be better to separate the editorial changes from the > conceptual changes and vote on two orthogonal proposals? > > Apart from this, I think your proposal looks good.
Thanks for your support, but I did consider what you propose, and I disagree. I am not planning to do that because our voting mechanism has no means of declaring two winners. It is easy for me to imagine that both proposals would pass by the required majority, but the editorial-only one would be the Condorcet winner because it would garner more votes (presumably because it would be less controversial). Also, I don't feel it's worth making cosmetic changes to the Social Contract unless we're rectifying more serious problems as well. However, I cannot stop other Debian Developers from proposing an editorial-changes only amendment to compete with mine. I fear to do so would promote the sort of insincere voting[1] that Condorcet's Method is designed to avoid, but if I'm right we may just have to learn that lesson the hard way. I do not think there is a single change I am proposing -- of the semantic variety -- that cannot be tied to a Debian mailing list discussion in the past three years, though I admit I haven't done the work to footnote every single one. [1] This term is defined at <URL: http://accuratedemocracy.com/z_words.htm>. -- G. Branden Robinson | No executive devotes much effort to Debian GNU/Linux | proving himself wrong. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Laurence J. Peter http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
