Hi, First off, this is a public apology to Anthony Towns:
I disagreed with your interpretation of the constitution, in your message with the header: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Currently, I think you're right: that in the case of a circular tie that isn't an exact tie, the constitution eliminates all options and the default option wins. [This means that the section on "Single Transferrable Vote" is largely meaningless.] At present, I see my proposal as largely solving a non-problem -- the present behavior of the constitution is consistent with historical debian practice: if our preferences are inconsistent we discuss until we find a resolution. [However, I do think that we need explicit language which shows that historical balloting practice -- such as we used in the logo vote -- is proper.] On this basis, I'm withdrawing my most recent proposal (which is also unsponsored) to amend the constitution, which was posted in my message with the header: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For now, I'm going to wait for Norman Petry's group to come up with a set of recommendations (and, I hope, a corresponding set of reasons for those recommendations). I expect this to take a month or two, and I hope that we'll be able to settle on some reasonable version of the constitution within a month or two after that. Thanks, -- Raul
