Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

This is my concern.

If we start now a discussion (again?) on what is the *very best* (tm) 
method for voting on multiple choices, we are likely to achieve exactly 
what Prof. Froomkin fears, i.e. something that is interminable.

What we need is a simple bootstrap to get going.
Once bootstrapped, we can make the system stepwise more "accurate" (but 
also probably more "complicated").

Also, for the time being we don't have to deal with elections, where we 
will necessarily have to deal with multiple candidates, but with 
"proposals" or "statements", where with some good work in the prior 
discussion on the list we may be able to reduce the question to the 
electorate to a "Yes/No".

Will it be fair to say that for the time being we have the "simple" 
system, and that we have in the agenda the "revision" of this system 
during the next quarter?

As for the other objections, from Chuck, I agree on the fact that one 
week may be short.
About the "advance notice", I agree that a vote cannot come out of the 
blue without preparation and discussion. Will the discussion on the list
 on a specific subject be a sufficient "heads up" warning?
Practical example: we have been discussing about voting rules, list 
rules, membership, for months now. Will anybody be surprised if we call 
a vote? I think not. But people may find useful to have the final 
proposals "posted" for a (short) period of time before opening an 
official vote.

Can we have a sense of the audience on this?

Regards
Roberto
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html