On 3/23/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I assign CFJ 1608 to Maud. Text is here: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-January/002784.html
I (proto-)judge the statement of CFJ 1608 to be TRUE. In what follows, ``I'' means I and ``we'' means we. The Caller suggests that Agoran decisions in general cannot be adopted. However, the statement of the CFJ concerns only proposals with a voting index of Unanimity. I therefore concern myself only with such proposals, and remain silent on the issue of whether Agoran decisions cay be adopted in general. As the Caller points out, neither ``index'' nor ``unanimity'' is currently defined by the rules. We therefore must consider provisions (3) and (4) of rule 754 to determine the meanings of these terms. The term ``index'' has uses in mathematical contexts, where it generally refers to some invariant of a structure used most often to reduce the comparison of complicated objects to the comparison of simple indices. Many but by no means all mathematical indices are integers or at least algebraic integers. However, the term ``index'' is not primarily used in mathematical contexts; it definitely is not primarily used in legal contexts. Turning to ordinary language, the major senses include the notion of the list in a book of pointers to specific topics, arranged for ease of reference as well as the economic notion of an index, which is often a single number summarizing a large amount of information. Both uses of the term are common, so we may choose whichever term makes the rules make the most sense. I find that the rules make more sense when the term ``index'' is interpreted in this second sense, informed by but not constrained by the mathematical sense of the word, while the rules do not make sense when the term ``index'' is interpreted in the sense of a list of pointers. I accept the Caller's arguments regarding the interpretation of the term ``unanimity''. Thus it remains to consider the comparison of a numerical adoption index with the non-numerical voting index of Unanimity. The language of rule 955 (c) makes it clear that the voting index is generally intended to be the ratio of FOR votes to AGAINST votes. All other things being equal, as the number of AGAINST votes tends to zero, the voting index tends to positive infinity, which is definitely greater than one or any finite adoption index. I find that since rule 955 uses the adoption index as a benchmark for acceptable ratios of FOR to AGAINST votes, it is reasonable to treat a comparison of Unanimity (consent of all the voters) with any adoption index as though it were a numerical comparison of positive infinity with the same adoption index. Hence a proposal with a finite adoption index may be adopted if it achieves quorum and has a voting index of Unanimity. -- Michael Slone
