News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Debian decides to allow secret votes by avianlyric on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @07:54AM (#30841371)
Because this is a constitution change, which requires a 3:1 super majority to change, a concept the Schulze method doesn’t really provide for.

The issues arises from how the 3:1 ratio is calculated. Which is by comparing the number of “change it” votes to the number of the “None of the above (NOTA)” votes (this is my understanding of from the email thread).

As a result the number of NOTA directly impacts the number to approval votes needed to win, as a simple majority isn’t enough. Thus having a NOTA option, and an option that looks like a NOTA can create confusion which splits the NOTA vote, because voting “keep public vote” above NOTA, which reduces the number of counted NOTA votes, and increases the number of “change it” votes (as all non-NOTA votes are considered “change it” votes, regardless of practical impact, at least that my understanding from the thread). Thus reduces number of approval votes need to achieve the super majority.

As this vote was won by a single vote, voter confusion on how choice ordering regarding the NOTA option could have swung vote against the intentions of the voting members.

Re:Debian decides to allow secret votes by malthuswaswrong on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @08:11AM (#30841479)
But NOTA and Affirm the Public Vote are not the same. Choosing ATPV would have changed the constitution. NOTA would not have changed the constitution. If this were an American election full of idiots and people who have no idea what they are voting for, then the argument would have weight. These are people who follow the Debian source code debate close enough to give a shit and vote. They knew what they were doing.
Re:Debian decides to allow secret votes by mjw1007 on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @10:11AM (#30842756)
ATPV would not have changed the constitution (and did not require a supermajority).