Bernd Zeimetz <
bzed@debian.org> write:
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.
I'm sorry Bernd, but I'm having trouble following your logic there.
Are you saying groups should never post-mortem the performance of
their voting systems, with an eye towards identifying flaws and
perhaps even remediating them? Surely the examples you give suggest
otherwise: we'd all be better off if the USA had a better-performing presidential election system!
As it happens, I'm personally extremely pleased with the result of the
RMS GR election. That's not the point. Just as we examine the
performance of, and try to identify issues with, our computer systems,
we should examine the performance of, and try to identify issues with,
our social structures. Including in particular the way we make group
decisions. That includes how we formulate them, how we deliberate
about them, and how we ultimately come to a decision.
The actual voting system is a part of that, but there are other moving
parts. To take one example, I don't think anyone was particularly
pleased with the performance of our ballot-option-selection process.
--Barak.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)