Hi Am 2025-07-23 16:05, schrieb Larry Garfield:
The only thing I'd add is that in the case of multi-option secondary votes, STV/RCV also be explicitly allowed. (Rank first, second, third, etc.). (I'm aware the mechanism for STV is kinda clunky on the wiki right now, but we know how to make it work.) Perhaps even encouraged if "do nothing" is not one of the options.
I meant to allow any alternative forms of “majority” with the:
The interpretation of the result of a secondary vote, necessary threshold(s), and tie-breakers MUST be defined at the start of the voting period.
rule, but it certainly makes sense to spell this out explicitly. I've opted to only allow STV, because that's what is established in the project, so participants already know how it works.
Find the changes in the following commit: https://github.com/TimWolla/policies/commit/0d8eaf048f9a998bcc7bf6a8c696ba5452a255ae
An example of both up/down and either/or secondary votes would also be helpful.
I have added an example for a plurality vote in https://github.com/TimWolla/policies/commit/de94b7a132c4a74e54e7848914203f1849231697. I am having trouble with phrasing an example for a non-plurality vote that doesn't get complicated. If you have a suggestion, I'm happy to add it. But a secondary vote with a 2/3 majority should already be known from a primary vote and it's always necessary to clearly specify how the results of secondary votes are interpreted for an individual vote.
Best regards Tim Düsterhus
