On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 16:01 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Oh, crud. Conditional votes broken entirely? Maybe. > > For history, R2127 used to say in part: > The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified > if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified > condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity > or paradox, from information published within the voting period. > > This "clearly identified" was a direct and specific callback to "clearly > identified" in R683: > 4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by > the voting method. > > At some point "clearly identified" changed to "clearly specified" so > the link is much weaker (or broken, as Alexis suggests). Does this > history of direct reference, later weakened, call for Reconsideration? > > -G. > Yeah, that's what I ended up at. I think the actual issue here is the shift from "valid options" to "valid votes", and the tightening over time of the language in 683. I will try to propose a fix tonight that hopefully the Promotor can include in this week's distribution. -Alexis
