Hi Felix,

On 05.04.21 15:35, Felix Lechner wrote:

When a center option is likely to fail our majority requirement [1]
should I rank preferable extreme choices above FD even if I am
strictly moderately inclined?

You are making two bold assumptions here: that the options are on a
single one-dimensional axis, and that middle ground positions are always preferable.

Our position statement, whatever it is, contains multiple statements,
because there are multiple issues at stake here: whether we find RMS's behaviour acceptable, whether we find the FSF board's behaviour
acceptable, whether we believe that the accusations were sufficiently
proven, and if they are, whether that is relevant or should be
disregarded because contributions are more important than behaviour and
code matters more than community.

These are correlated, but not the same, so it is difficult to position
all of the options on a single axis.

Even if it were a one-dimensional axis, there are good chances that a
middle ground position would be worse than an extreme position,
combining the disadvantages of both and the advantages of neither.

Thus it makes sense to view each position statement separately, project
its likely outcome, and rank the favourability of these outcomes instead
of trying to rank them by closeness to a desired position statement --
that's why we have a cloneproof voting system that allows anyone to
contribute a statement that exactly represents their position without it detracting from other, similar statements.

Along the same lines, would it be better for a voting system to quadruple-count, or otherwise strengthen, options voters rank in the middle—thereby recognizing that a compromise between two or more sides
is always a prerequisite for peace?

There are more than two sides here, and multiple definitions of "peace".

One possible definition differentiates between negative peace (the
absence of personal violence) and positive peace (the absence of
structural violence)[1], and whether a particular position statement
serves to promote peace is dependent on one's definition.

Simon

[1] http://www.activeforpeace.org/no/fred/Positive_Negative_Peace.pdf

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

Hi Simon,

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:15 PM Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> wrote:

You are making two bold assumptions here: that the options are on a
single one-dimensional axis

I don't think I said that—nor do I believe it. My question was about
the ballot, which more or less imposes a linear ranking.

and that middle ground positions are always
preferable.

Yes, compromise and middle-ground positions are essential for peace,
but unlike you said it is not an assumption. It is a realization
borne by life experience. Perhaps it helps to be a party to civil
proceedings (and maybe you have been, too). Judges are our experts of
peace. They devote their lives to hearing and resolving other people's problems. And from what I have seen, neither party ever gets what they
want. Anyone who says differently has a hidden agenda, or is maybe
delusional.

These are correlated, but not the same, so it is difficult to position
all of the options on a single axis.

It was easy for me to rank some contradictory non-center options next
to each other.

Even if it were a one-dimensional axis, there are good chances that a
middle ground position would be worse than an extreme position,

I reject such claims. They are dangerous to peace. Perhaps there is a
chance, but unless you can identify details among the options on the
ballot, it remains a theoretical argument. Any group must have a
center of gravity that pulls its people together, otherwise it will
split up. That is not what I hope for, in Debian or otherwise.

rank the favourability of these outcomes instead
of trying to rank them by closeness to a desired position statement

People can approach the ballot any way they like.

There are more than two sides here, and multiple definitions of "peace".

There are not. Many paths lead to war, but only one leads to peace.
Something whole breaks into pieces. Please drop a glass if you have
doubts.

One possible definition differentiates

Thanks for the link! Lacking experience, I struggle to respond to an
academic review paper, but I think you are possibly caught up in the
abstract distinctions of an expert whose business it is to write such
papers (Galtung). In my mind, the "negative peace"—the absence of
overt violent conflict—is not a peace at all, but a truce, and
therefore a misnomer insufficiently mitigated by the qualifying
adjective. On that note, did you notice that the UN appropriated its
wreathen symbols from the Roman legion?

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

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