[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ga] silence in RROR v. PAB

Kent claims that in RROR, silence=assent.

Kent is wrong.

In RROR (and in the rules I proposed), silence=acceptance of will of
the majority.  Silence equals heads not counted.

In PAB (stop insisting I didn't read the rules, Kent.  I did.  Several
times.  Closely.  If you're looking at web logs, I didn't do it from
this system.) silence literally means "I approve of what is being put
to a vote."  Heads are counted, and they are counted in the

There is an incredible difference between the two.  As someone capable
of writing code, Kent should easily recognize this distinction.
Anyone capable of grasping simple math should also see the difference.

For whatever reason (political or personal) he sees fit to insist
there is no difference.  He is quite wrong.  Prove it to yourself:

Imagine 20 people.  They are voting on question X.

6 vote no, 4 vote yes, 10 abstain (i.e., are silent).
(the 6 no votes are the majority of ballots cast)

Under my proposal:
  Question X fails, 6 to 4 against.  The 10 silent members are not
  included in the tally, period.  The silent people gave up their
  right to sway the vote by not participating.
  Majority wins the vote.

Under Kent's rules:
  Question X passes, 14 to 6 in favor.  The 10 silent members are
  included in the tally, in favor of the question.  The silent
  people, who are silent for unknown reasons because they are silent,
  sway the vote.
  Majority loses the vote.

If you institute this rule, any body governed by it here will in all
likelihood be stuffed with accounts from which nothing ever issues.
These silent accounts will simply stuff the ballot box.  But you're
familiar with that process, Kent.  You've already admitted publically
to registering false accounts to these lists for the sole purpose of

Yes, you've been involved in this process longer than I have.  But
I appear to have a talent you don't:  The ability to count.

Now, stop trying to railroad "rough consensus" into this process.  You
tried to do it in WG-C, and it failed.  You tried to do it in WG-D,
and got nowhere.  Now you're trying it here.

It will not work.  We have proof that it will not work.  It's been
tried in the WGs and has been found to be lacking.

Finally, please stop associating me with Joop's organization.  I quit
a long time ago.

Mark C. Langston
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA