Sam Hartman writes: > For me though, even there, notice that we'd be choosing between options > that the voters considered acceptable. > Because of that, I am not bothered by the cycle.
If the decision doesn't really matter but a non-FD option must be chosen (like a hungry group picking a restaurant) then sure, whatever. But for something important, I think we *should* be bothered by a cycle. Let me give an example. Let's say we end up with ALPHA, BETA, and GAMMA in a cycle: ALPHA>BETA, BETA>GAMMA, GAMMA>ALPHA. So we run our resolution algorithm, and it picks ALPHA. Well that's nice. But note that if we had not had BETA as an option on the ballot, then GAMMA would have been the winner, without anyone changing their votes. Not only is that odd, but it means that it would be reasonable for a die-hard ALPHA supporter, seeing that GAMMA is going to beat ALPHA, would propose adding BETA to the ballot. This means that we are vulnerable to strategic (rather than honest) behaviour throughout the process, including in proposing ballot options. If ALPHA, BETA, and GAMMA are restaurants, then it doesn't matter. But if they're different directions for the future of the project, or otherwise of great importance to people, then it becomes a big deal. And if it calls the legitimacy of the voting process into question, then it becomes an even bigger deal. Like "hey, who proposed BETA, and were they actually an ALPHA supporter? I call shenanigans!" In the RMS GR, people proposed or seconded ballot options that they themselves did not support, as a way of ensuring fairness and coverage of opinions. I think that was very healthy and considerate, and I'd like to thank the people involved for trying to make the process inclusive and be sure everyone had an option that they could stand behind. But if we had a cycle, it could be misconstrued, and I think that would be a shame. --Barak.