On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 01:38:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> I've had enough bad experiences with committees and groups in the past > >> that I've developed a deep dislike of voting or nomination systems that > >> don't take into account the ability of the chosen slate to work with > >> each other. > > > That argument makes sense for technical groups, where accomplishing a > > clearly defined task is the primary mission, but this is supposed to be > > the basis for electing the first ever social committee, which doesn't > > have a straightforward mission (or at least, we're inventing the mission > > ad hoc :). > > Hm, my experience is that this is *way* more important for social groups > than it is for technical groups. Now, if one is electing essentially a > legislature, where each member is expected to vote and work independently, > it's not as big of a problem. But if the group is ever expected to work > by consensus or common ground, this sort of voting system is, IMO, a huge > problem.
I don't get it. Isn't the point of "consensus" to get agreement from an entire group, or at least the entire relevant part of the group? If we use a voting system that aims to eliminate conflicting options, and instead have a small set of compatible options win, then that's not really aiming for a consensus, it's just aiming for a majority. If the social committee represents only the majority, it instantly loses credibility, and in Debian, that would pretty much be its ruin. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]