On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:56:55AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Interesting idea, but there's zero chance of it working. People can't > even fill out the existing ballots properly, they'll never grasp this > - so the results won't tell us anything particularly useful.
I'm not sure why anyone who thought this badly of his fellow developers would want to be a member of the project, personally. > I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most > people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's > mathematically sound or not, that's how people think. It might be how *you* think; but at least historically Debian tends to prefer to make a decision, even if it's not the one they personally prefer. Personally, I'd expect anyone who's unable to accept the outcome of the vote to leave Debian, rather than to try to bend the project to their will in other ways. That's the main reason why I think discussion should happen in advance of voting on resolutions, too. > > > I *think* that you're describing a scenario with a large number of > > > insincere voters, though. > > No, I'm describing a situation where the voting system is being used in > > the way it was designed to be used. > Then it's a matter for the secretary when creating the ballot, not an > independent proposal. I suggest you take it up with him (when he gets > back). No, if no one feels strongly enough that the status quo is a good outcome (as they didn't for the social contract or the original "Concorde" voting system), then it shouldn't be proposed and shouldn't appear on the ballot. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
