On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:04:20AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I am not sure whether Colin is aware that it currently depends on him > whether or not DT can win - and whether that might make him consider > changing his vote. > > If Ian convinces Colin to change his vote to move DT from 5. to 7. on > his ballot, then DT cannot pass FD and is dead.
I have been intentionally trying not to do the Condorcet analysis, because I consider tactical voting of that kind to be borderline dishonest. As it is, I'm far from a voting systems expert and I have to go to considerable effort to work this sort of thing out, making me safer against any impulses I might develop to manipulate things. So I would actually appreciate it if people did not try to make me aware of these things. (I will now try to burn the brain cells involved in writing this paragraph. :-) ) When deciding my vote, I was trying to bear in mind that decision paralysis has its own costs to the project: further discussion is not automatically the safe status quo that it might be in other situations. Thus, I mainly ranked those options below FD which I considered not to make enough useful progress, so that we would be very likely to simply end up back here in a short period of time. For me, I consider DT (and for that matter UT) to be a significantly less than ideal compromise; among other things I don't think it provides enough safeguards against various kinds of fracturing of the distribution. But it also doesn't exclude (what I think of as) better outcomes, and it gets us past this divisive and exhausting debate and lets us move to a default init which is better than we have now even if it isn't my preferred one. So, taking this into consideration, I placed it barely above FD, and I think I'd do the same in future votes on similar sets of options. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org