On Wed, Dec 17, 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I do not think I meant proposed as in formal proposals to be > voted upon. I meant splitting up votes for the same issue which leads > to the results being gamed.
This is an hypothetical case you're making; most people think the issues are orthogonal. We can discuss various ways our voting system can be gamed; I'm concerned by the way it just was. > Say, for example, we do split up the votes. And the winning > options of different votes contradict. Which takes precedence? If it is > the latest vote, which vote is voted upon last? Can I withsraw an > option, and put it to vote at the very end, to get an edge? People can try gaming each vote or a group of votes or the voting system; we'll see on a case by case basis. > Why is having an omnibus vote now, and a vote on option #4 and > option #6 in January any worse than arbitarily splitting votes? (We > could stipulate that actions on the january votes apply only after > lenny releases, to prevent people trying to game the lenny release). I don't think proposing a change to the proposed resolutions (that they'd apply after lenny) has anything to do with the fact that we vote on them separately or on a single ballot. One reason it's worse is that we will effectively take only one decision instead of at least 3 or 4. -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org