On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:29:55AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > 1) If none of the proposed courses of actions meets the 3:1 majority > requirement, it is the same as "FURTHER DISCUSSION", right?
Right. > 1a) If so, what do we do? Is Anthony Towns's interpretation of the > Social Contract and its bindingness upon the sarge release > *uncontroversially* the status qup? In that hypothetical scenario, apparently so. Given the number of people who voted for the last SC change who have since said they would vote differently, I think this is a rather unlikely outcome. > 1b) If not, what do we do? Talk about what we have learned and use that to try for a better outcome. > 2) Are we seeking only one "winner" in this pending GR? Yes. > The Condorcet Method (with Cloneproof/SSD) is easily capable of showing > us the most favored M of N choices. True, but the voting mechanism we agreed to still has us picking a single winner. There are a number of ambiguities which could arise with multiple winners, and it's possible to create ballot options which combine "potential winners" into a single option for the cases where this is meaningful. > The last round of SPI Board elections worked > this way; there were three vacancies and several candidates; the 3 most > preferred candidates under the Condorcet method filled the seats. That makes sense -- if we had a number of slots to fill, it would be reasonable to have multiple winners. This is independent of whether we had a specific number of slots to fill or some undetermined number to fill. However, in our current constitution, we only have one leader. > 2a) Constitution A.6.8[1] strongly implies that the answer to 2) is > "yes". Is it wise to have our SRP bind us to only one of several > possible outcomes? Should we amend the Constitution to allow running an > election with multiple winners, or is it felt this is not necessary, > since approving M of N choices is thought to only be applicable to > electing personnel, and we have no election process for anything apart > from the solitary office of Project Leader? Yes. -- Raul
