On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences) > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me.
Er.. are you suggesting we squelch debate on supermajority? None of the additions were "random". They were flawed in a number of ways (I had a flawed understanding of the significance of pairwise ties in CpSSD, for example), and we've been discussing the flaws. Personally, I'm currently looking at the draft implied by Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If it doesn't make sense, I'd like to understand why. If it does make sense, I'd like to see a formally written instance of that draft. Right now it seems to make a lot of sense. > And what are we trying to protect ourselves from? At the moment? We're trying to protect ourselves from instituting a bad set of rules. > I cannot really imagine something like a "hostile take-over" > of the debian project. Neither can I. However, I can imagine us making changes out of frustration or anger, or for some other reason making changes where we've not fully considered the implications of a decision. -- Raul
