On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 09:48:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Yep. But of the 20 who actively approved of B, 19 prefered A. > Meanwhile, nobody actively opposed A, but 19 people actively opposed B.
True. We do not require unanimous agreement in such cases. > Choosing B is a good way to start flame wars. Choosing A is a good way > not to. Choosing D is a good way to come up with a better option. > Which is chosen? > > <sarcasm>Ah, I see: Debian's policy is to encourage flame wars!</sarcasm> Actually there's a certain amount of validity to that point of view -- if it's flame wars it takes to get people involved in the subject, then they have some marginal value. Not that flames are actually required... just involvement. More generally, though, with a low voter turnout, it *is* quite possible that the sample of people participating in the vote choose differently from the larger group. The smaller the sample size, the greater this possibility. > Seriously, Manoj's system *isn't* a quorum system. It's a per-option quorum. That's different from "not being a quorum." > "Quorum" is to make sure enough people are present for the discussion. > (Perhaps the correct way to count quorum is "number of developers > sending email about the topic during the discussion period"... heh. > That might actually work.) Except that people present during the early parts of the discussion might have to leave months before the voting period actually starts. > I have trouble thinking of a single correct justification for Manoj's > system. <wry>That sounds like a personal problem.</wry> > None have been offered on this list; all the justifications I've heard > for Manoj's system are actually justifications for one of the following > two things: > > * The proper scheme for making sure that an appropriate number of people > approve of something is called "getting seconds" (and you've already > got that). That's it. Now, if you can: define "appropriate", and explain why quorum is not "appropriate". > * The proper scheme for deferring to the default option unless there's a > strong enough preference is margin-of-victory-over-default. Nope, that's the quorum alternative you proposed earlier today. > I will now try to justify Manoj's "quorum" system. > > "No proposal can be implemented by fewer than R people, where R is the > quorum. Therefore there's no point in approving any proposal with fewer > than R people actively approving of it." Nope. That's John H. Robinson, IV's quorum. -- Raul
