On Tue, 20 May 2003 22:43:59 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi, You actually propose two separate amendments. Please don't do > that, it smells of politics. :-/ > John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > - 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other > - than the default option which do not receive at least R votes > - ranking that option above the default option are dropped from > - consideration. > + 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R, and less then R votes > are > + cast, the entire vote is thrown out. The amendment may be > withdrawn, > + or a discussion period may be resumed at the sponsor's discretion. > I think I like this change. Apart from the fact that a ballot having a quorum may not be well defined; this amendment is superfluous, since if less than R votes are cast, then no option gets R votes, so all options are discarded, and the vote is invalidated anyway. > + 3. Any option with a supermajority requirement which does not > defeat > + the default option by its required majority ratio is dropped from > + consideration. > - 3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default > option > - by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration. > The point of wording it the "old" way was that any option which is > ranked below the default by a majority is removed before starting > the algorithm. That is intentional; otherwise, a case can be > constructed where such an option could win, which is Not Good. > I'd reject this change. Quite. manoj -- Mind your own business, then you don't mind mine. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C