On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:28:54PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: > Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs. > I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A > over C. I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C > over A or avoided ranking either of them. I should have voted -1-2.
It wouldn't have done you any good -- that case is only considered should it come down to choosing between A and C -- ie, if your preferred options of B and D have already been eliminated. It's also considered should there be a circular tie, but such a thing has never actually happened in Debian. > There definitely is a strategy to our voting method. Every rank counts > for something. Because someone deploys a strategy to their voting > choices does not mean they vote insincerely. I'm sincerely disappointed > in the outcome of the last GR, but I support the method in which it was > conducted. Actually deploying a strategy does mean your voting insincerely. By definition. Voting insincerely shouldn't be taken as an insult. > If we can prove that the system has flaws, then let's fix them, or at > least minimize the problems through procedure. That you're sincerely disappointed in the outcome of the last GR doesn't indicate a flaw in the system though -- pretty much every time we have two options on the ballot, *someone* is going to be disappointed. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]