Sure, if an element of a cycle must be picked then our voting system
does have a way of picking one, unless there's a perfect tie. (And the
details are really interesting if, like me, you're into that sort of
thing.)

But from a Press Release point of view, it would be pretty darn
awkward to say "The Debian Project has voted and chosen OPTION ALPHA.
It is true that a majority of the voters actually preferred OPTION
BETA to OPTION ALPHA. But don't worry about that, because <complicated technical stuff involving graph theory and seemingly-irrelevant
options gamma and delta>."

That kind of thing is fine for electing a DPL, when presumably
candidates ALPHA and BETA and GAMMA are all reasonable choices, given
that they're in a winning cycle. Plus we don't really need to justify
that decision externally. But for other decisions---and the RMS GR is
a poster boy for this---that logic really doesn't fly, and such a
situation would be quite problematic.

I'm suggesting that, since we came within a razor (just ONE BALLOT, as
Adrian Bunk pointed out) of that situation actually occurring, we get
in front of things, think about it, and figure out something proactive
to prevent it from ever actually happening: to prevent us from ever
having to make such an embarrassing press release.

--Barak A. Pearlmutter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of breed. But
there's an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out.

If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7
and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any
reason for someone to rank them very differently. So if the voters are rational, we'd think that nearly all ballots would have options 7 and
8 ranking either the same or adjacent. And that if one is ranked the
same as other options, then they should both be. Yet many of the
ballots rank one but not the other, or rank them very differently.
Some voters ranked either option 7 or 8 as "1" and allowed everything
else to default. It's very difficult to imagine someone who actually
preferred option 7 being equally satisfied with any of options 1-6 and
8.

We tend to assume that the DD electorate is highly sophisticated and
rational and understand how to correctly express their preferences,
and how ranking works. But a quick perusal of the actual ballots has
disabused me of that notion.

The usual reaction to this sort of thing is to alter the voter
instructions. But people have intuitions for how voting works, and
blurbs might not be very effective at changing their behaviour.

--Barak.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 20:30 +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:

But from a Press Release point of view, it would be pretty darn
awkward to say "The Debian Project has voted and chosen OPTION ALPHA.
It is true that a majority of the voters actually preferred OPTION
BETA to OPTION ALPHA. But don't worry about that, because <complicated technical stuff involving graph theory and seemingly-irrelevant
options gamma and delta>."

Then don't say that.
We have a defined method of voting, and if people don't like the results:
there are procedures to change the voting method, the constitution and other things. After that you could even start a new GR. Complaining about the
voting system because you don't like the outcome or because you could
announce the outcome in an awkward way is not helpful.

There are awkward voting systems all over the world (ever voted for the US president? or in Germany?), so Debian is not special.




--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Barak" == Barak A Pearlmutter <barak@pearlmutter.net> writes:

Barak> The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of
Barak> breed. But there's an old saying in computer science: garbage
Barak> in, garbage out.

Barak> If we look at the actual ballots, it's really
Barak> interesting. Options 7 and 8 were semantically pretty much
Barak> equivalent. It's hard to see any reason for someone to rank
Barak> them very differently. So if the voters are rational, we'd
Barak> think that nearly all ballots would have options 7 and 8
Barak> ranking either the same or adjacent. And that if one is
Barak> ranked the same as other options, then they should both
Barak> be. Yet many of the ballots rank one but not the other, or
Barak> rank them very differently. Some voters ranked either option
Barak> 7 or 8 as "1" and allowed everything else to default. It's
Barak> very difficult to imagine someone who actually preferred
Barak> option 7 being equally satisfied with any of options 1-6 and
Barak> 8.


In my mind the ballot options are not similar. First, things above FD
are things I don't mind being in a cycle. If it's ranked above FD, I'd
rather be done with a decisdiscussion and have that option win even if
it is not my preferred option. Options below FD are options I'd prefer
not make their way into a cycle.

Second, FD implies that the question is still open. I might be able to convince people to choose something more aligned with my option in the following discussion.
In contrast, option 7 is final; we've made a decision.

So, in filling out my ballot I rank:

1) Options that I like--where I'd be okay with any of those options
getting chosen.

2) fd

3) Options that are in the general direction I like, but are weak enough
that I'd rather have an opportunity to ask people to do something
stronger than choose those options.

4) no statement

5) options that are in a direction I disagree with.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Sam Hartman writes:

For me though, even there, notice that we'd be choosing between options
that the voters considered acceptable.
Because of that, I am not bothered by the cycle.

If the decision doesn't really matter but a non-FD option must be
chosen (like a hungry group picking a restaurant) then sure, whatever.

But for something important, I think we *should* be bothered by a cycle.

Let me give an example. Let's say we end up with ALPHA, BETA, and
GAMMA in a cycle: ALPHA>BETA, BETA>GAMMA, GAMMA>ALPHA. So we run our
resolution algorithm, and it picks ALPHA. Well that's nice. But note
that if we had not had BETA as an option on the ballot, then GAMMA
would have been the winner, without anyone changing their votes. Not
only is that odd, but it means that it would be reasonable for a
die-hard ALPHA supporter, seeing that GAMMA is going to beat ALPHA,
would propose adding BETA to the ballot. This means that we are
vulnerable to strategic (rather than honest) behaviour throughout the
process, including in proposing ballot options.

If ALPHA, BETA, and GAMMA are restaurants, then it doesn't matter. But
if they're different directions for the future of the project, or
otherwise of great importance to people, then it becomes a big deal.
And if it calls the legitimacy of the voting process into question,
then it becomes an even bigger deal. Like "hey, who proposed BETA, and
were they actually an ALPHA supporter? I call shenanigans!"

In the RMS GR, people proposed or seconded ballot options that they
themselves did not support, as a way of ensuring fairness and coverage
of opinions. I think that was very healthy and considerate, and I'd
like to thank the people involved for trying to make the process
inclusive and be sure everyone had an option that they could stand
behind. But if we had a cycle, it could be misconstrued, and I think
that would be a shame.

--Barak.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

FWIW, I didn't consider 7 and 8 at all similar.

After watching the strain the pre-vote discussion introduced, I decided making no statement as a project was the best outcome. But if the project were to make a statement, I wanted to express preference between the acceptable to me statements, then put
the unacceptable to me options below FD.

Bdale

On April 18, 2021 3:18:22 PM MDT, "Barak A. Pearlmutter" <barak@pearlmutter.net> wrote:

The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of breed. But >there's an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out.

If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7
and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any
reason for someone to rank them very differently. So if the voters are >rational, we'd think that nearly all ballots would have options 7 and
8 ranking either the same or adjacent. And that if one is ranked the
same as other options, then they should both be. Yet many of the
ballots rank one but not the other, or rank them very differently.
Some voters ranked either option 7 or 8 as "1" and allowed everything
else to default. It's very difficult to imagine someone who actually >preferred option 7 being equally satisfied with any of options 1-6 and
8.

We tend to assume that the DD electorate is highly sophisticated and
rational and understand how to correctly express their preferences,
and how ranking works. But a quick perusal of the actual ballots has >disabused me of that notion.

The usual reaction to this sort of thing is to alter the voter
instructions. But people have intuitions for how voting works, and
blurbs might not be very effective at changing their behaviour.

--Barak.

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. <html><head></head><body>FWIW, I didn't consider 7 and 8 at all similar. <br><br>After watching the strain the pre-vote discussion introduced, I decided making no statement as a project was the best outcome. But if the project were to make a statement,
I wanted to express preference between the acceptable to me statements, then put the unacceptable to me options below FD. <br><br>Bdale<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On April 18, 2021 3:18:22 PM MDT, "Barak A. Pearlmutter" &lt;barak@pearlmutter.net&gt;
wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of breed. But<br>there's an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out.<br><br>If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7<br>and 8 were
semantically pretty much equivalent. It's h

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:32:40PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:

Sam Hartman writes:

For me though, even there, notice that we'd be choosing between options that the voters considered acceptable.
Because of that, I am not bothered by the cycle.

If the decision doesn't really matter but a non-FD option must be
chosen (like a hungry group picking a restaurant) then sure, whatever.

But for something important, I think we *should* be bothered by a cycle.

Let me give an example. Let's say we end up with ALPHA, BETA, and
GAMMA in a cycle: ALPHA>BETA, BETA>GAMMA, GAMMA>ALPHA. So we run our resolution algorithm, and it picks ALPHA. Well that's nice. But note
that if we had not had BETA as an option on the ballot, then GAMMA
would have been the winner, without anyone changing their votes.

You might want to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives#Criticism_of_IIA

Not
only is that odd, but it means that it would be reasonable for a
die-hard ALPHA supporter, seeing that GAMMA is going to beat ALPHA,
would propose adding BETA to the ballot. This means that we are
vulnerable to strategic (rather than honest) behaviour throughout the process, including in proposing ballot options.

So that would be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_nomination

If the option is similar to an existing option, it should not
have an effect for the Schulze method we use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_clones_criterion

No voting system is perfect.


Kurt

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bernd, sometimes the devil is in the details, and that's certainly the
case with voting systems.

Why should I rank options if there is only a limited number of
options I care about, and the others are just equally bad
choices imho?

I feel like we're sort of belaboring a point.

If someone voted
1-------
does it really seem plausible that they actually thought Option 2 was
exactly as bad as Option 5? So if Option 1 were removed from the
table, and they personally would pick which remaining option would be
chosen, they'd be just as happy with any of Options 2-8?

It seems much more likely that they thought this was a way of
expressing maximum support for Option 1, and that ranking anything
else diluted that support.

Cheers,

--Barak.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)