ternary operator vote

[Erik Max Francis]

jerf at compy.attbi.com wrote:

> Second, "fair" in a voting system is a virtually useless concept. Just
> because 50.001% of a group votes that X should be done doesn't mean
> that
> it's "fair" to go with X. Note that in the United States Federal
> government and in all states that I'm aware of, Constitution changes
> require a supermajority.

And, in fact, I'd point to the obvious case:  If you're considering
adding a new feature and (say) 40% of the community is in favor of it,
that might server to be plenty of justification for adding the feature
to a BDFL (e.g., "Well, I was lukewarm about the idea, but wow, that's
way more people in favor than I thought it would be; now I can see that
it's something genuinely wanted by enough to people to make it worth
doing").

I'm not suggesting that's the case here, but the key issue here is, it
seems to me, is 1. selecting a voting _process_ that everyone agrees is
reasonable, 2. collecting the results and disclosing them fully, and 3.
letting Guido make the call based on those results.

I don't see why we even need to talk about majorities or supermajorities
(or submajorities).  It's ultimately Guido's decision; let him decide it
based on the actual results of the vote, rather than some criteria set
up for him by proxy.

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Ride / Ride this wave of mine
\__/ Res
    Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
 An Esperanto reference for English speakers.