Hi Ian, Having given this some more thought, I believe I've come to understand why you don't see this to be such a crazy idea as I believe it is.
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:20:05PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one
> error and duplicate section numbering"):
> > So I understand that if there is no winner, and so maybe not
> > even a normal majority (that doesn't even exist anymore?) for it,
> > it becomes a statement of opinion?
>
> No. I'm not even sure what that paragraph of yours means. (If there
> is no winner, how could "it" become a statement of opinion ? What
> would "it" be ?) As for `normal' majorities, that is already dealt
> with by Condorcet. Something that most people disagree with cannot
> become the Condorcet winner because it will be defeated by FD/SQ.
>
> The intent of this change is that if the Condorcet(CSSD) winner does
> not meet the supermajority requirement, it is still the winning
> outcome of the whole vote, but only as a non-binding statement of
> opinion.
This works for votes where the electorate (either the TC or all DD's for
a GR) wish to overrule some other developer's opinion. If the overruling
vote wins and makes supermajority, then the other developer in question
has been overruled. If the overruling vote wins but does *not* make
supermajority, we in effect ask the other developer in question to
either "please" or "pretty please, with sugar on top" (depending on
whether the TC or the project as a whole voted) change things, without
requiring said change.
Things become rather murky, however, when we're voting on a change to
the constitution or a Foundation Document, which also requires a 3:1
supermajority.
If a vote to make a change the constitution wins, but does not make its
required supermajority, then what? Did we just add a paragraph "we think
this is a good idea, but you're not required to follow this bit of
procedure" to the constitution? That seems pointless, and would probably
make the constitution very hard to read if it happens a lot.
Do we throw said change away? We probably can't, because it's still a
non-binding resolution, or something.
If the non-winning change to the constitution just adds a few things
that aren't contradicted by the old constitution, then we could probably
get away with adding an awkward paragraph. If it wanted to change
existing procedure, however, then we effectively have to throw it away
anyway, because it can't even be there as a statement of opinion, other
than one which says "we think this is good, but you can't do it because
the constitution says it's not good", and that seems like an even worse
idea.
Put otherwise, the idea of a "non-binding change to the constitution"
seems to make no sense.
This is a problem, too.
Let's assume the desire to change the constitution is due to a crisis in
the project. Such GR's tend to have several options on the ballot,
rather than just one. Let's further assume that the change to the
constitution would resolve the crisis, as would several other options,
but that "not doing anything" would not, as I believe is most likely in
such cases.
If the condorcet winner doesn't make supermajority, it would not resolve
the situation (and might in fact make matters worse). In such cases,
under the current rules, another option would win, which presumably
would resolve the crisis as well.
In other words, while I understand where you're coming from and why you
believe this change is desirable, I think it does have some dangerous
side effects that you may not have considered. I therefore strongly urge
you (and everyeone who's seconded the original proposal) to reconsider,
and decide whether you really believe the above-described scenario is in
any way desirable, and I further urge you to come up with a solution to
that problem before this is brought to a vote.
Thanks,
--
It is easy to love a country that is famous for chocolate and beer
-- Barack Obama, speaking in Brussels, Belgium, 2014-03-26
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
