On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 10:13:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > I will assert that the options "no" and "further discussion" aren't > > > usefully different.
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:49:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > They're procedurally different, however. On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 12:31:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Not particularly so. If "No" wins the final vote, does that actually > stop people from continuing discussion, and proposing a new vote? If > "Further Discussion" wins, does that actually require people to continue > discussing things, or does it ensure the newly reset vote doesn't expire? "No" is a vote against all the whole idea under discussion, and indicates how the person would vote on future such ballots. "Further discussion" is a vote against the ballot itself -- it's a vote for an option not present on the ballot. > > I claim that "my first preference is yes on option A", is a yes vote > > for option A. And, if A requires a supermajority, then A.6(7) applies. > > Do you claim this is not an actual reason? Why? > > You're also claiming that "my second preference is a yes on option A" > is a no vote for option A. > > I'm claiming that "I prefer option A to the status quo" is a yes vote > for A, and "I prefer the status quo to option A" is a no vote for A, at > least as far as quorum and the supermajority are concerned. Actually, if you're talking about a properly formed A.3(3) vote, where you're voting on option A and independent option B, there should be on the ballot: Yes on A and B Yes on A, no on B Yes on B no on A no on A, no on B further discussion. > > > > > and M has unanimous support over N, and then add a third option: > > > > > * Evade constitution (E) > > > > If M really has unanimous support, you wouldn't add a new option -- > > > > no one would want a new option. Adding a new option only happens: > > > No, M has unanimous suppoer over N, that is everyone prefers it to > > > the current situation. That is, everyone wants to get rid of non-free. > > > A minority of those people would rather do it by exploiting loopholes in > > > the social contract ("We'll continue to provide non-free for download, > > > but we won't necessarily allow people to upload to it!! Muahahaha"). > > > Why, exactly, is it so undesirable to modify the social contract that > > > we should just ignore the expressed preferences of half/three-quarters > > > of the developer body, and take the "easier" solution, instead? > > I don't actually know, this is your fantasy. > > Well, it's also the result of your interpretation of the constitution, and > your proposed changes to the constitution. > > The *sole* reason that "E" wins in the above is because the alternative > preferred by the majority modifies the social contract. It's not because > that alternative doesn't have supermajority support over the status-quo. > It's not because most people dislike. It's not even because most people > prefer some other option. It's not even a well formed ballot, near as I can tell. It's just an exercise in numbers. > I assert that the purpose of supermajority requirements (like the > purpose of a quorum requirement) is simply to ensure that the > character of the organisation doesn't change without due consideration > by the members of the organisation. For some definition of "due consideration". I assert that it's a requirement for greater than majority agreement. > Your scheme seems to give it a meaning more like "try to choose > any other possible alternative that doesn't involve modifying the > constitution or overturning a decision of the tech ctte or whatever > else might require a supermajority". Those sorts of things only require a majority agreement, yes. > > > > That's my understanding of how the constitutional voting system is > > > > supposed to work, > > > Considering, under the most liberal interpretation, the constitution > > > describes two methods, one of which works that way, and one of which > > > works the other way, it seems a little bold to say that the constitution > > > is *supposed* to act that way. > > > Certainly, I think the constitution pretty clearly indicates that's > > > *not* how votes are meant to be handled or interpreted. > > Eh? If there's a sequence of votes, and people don't like the way > > that sequence went, they can vote against the final option. They > > can even keep the sequence going at the same time by voting for > > "further discussion". > > Even on an A.3(3) vote in your interpretation? > > Could you please give an example of some possible ways of conducting > a vote that includes at least "remove non-free" and "move non-free to > unofficial.debian.org", assuming that "remove non-free" modifies the > social contract, and that that requires a supermajority? See above "properly formed A.3(3)". Use "remove non-free" as option A, and "move non-free to unofficial.debian.org" as option B. > > > If they then get their supermajority support, why then ignore the stated > > > preferences of the voters, and choose the unnecessary compromise position > > > anyway? > > Because people voted for a different option from the one which required > > supermajority. Do you want to discount someone's vote on the basis > > that you find their position disagreeable? > > Again, you don't vote "for" or "against" an option when you're expressing > preferences. You only say which options you prefer to which others. > > This isn't just a quibble about wording: it's a fundamentally different > way of voting. Just because you list an option as second, doesn't mean > you dislike it. It doesn't even mean you particularly care whether your > first or second preference is chosen, it may just mean you prefer either > of those to your third preference. > > This is in stark contrast to first-past-the-post votes, and "aye/nay" > votes. Are you disagreeing with my idea of a properly formed A.3(3) ballot? If so, please specify what parts of the constitution I'm in conflict with. If not, please spell out what you mean in more detail. Thanks, -- Raul