[pp.int.general] Our votes, and our problem with amendment 3 having been annulled

[Ole Husgaard]

Carlos Ayala skrev:
> Hope nobody complains about my long mail, as it's just the reply to another long mail -and think Ole deserves all his doubts to be replied-.
>
> De: Ole Husgaard <pirat at sparre.dk>
> Enviado: viernes, 21 de noviembre, 2008 19:49:23
>   
>> For the votings with more than 2 options, how do the voting rules work here? Maybe the required
>> majority think that something has to be changed, but some may vote for option 2 and some for
>> option 3.
>>     
> One of the rules to be applied states the following: "supermajorities: for each amendment to become approved, at most two
> pirate parties should reject that amendment; having three or more
> pirate parties rejecting an amendment makes it become rejected"; while there would be some doubts regarding what does reject means within this context, the other rule -combined rule- clarifies this: "the combination of both requirements means that, being 11 eligible
> voters, at least 9 should vote, at least 7 should support an amendmentand at most 2 should reject it to make it become approved"
>
> So, amendments need at least 7 valid votes supporting them in order to be passed.
>   
Problem is that I think these rules are devised for simple yes/no
voting, not for multi-choice voting.

What I was thinking about is a situation like this: All parties think
the text should be changed, and there are two different proposals for
changing it. This gives three options: (1) unchanged, (2) proposal 1,
and (3) proposal 2.

If we end up with no votes for option (1), 6 votes for option (2), and 5
votes for option (3), it is obvious that we want the text changed. But
we do not have 7 votes for any of the options, so the text ends up being
unchanged. I hope we do not get this situation.

>> Also, we have a huge problem with amendment 3 having been annulled on a technicality
>>     
> No technicality:it was dropped by Jens the 6th of November. Ask Jens about it
>> and then refused to be reentered on another technicality.
>>     
> 40-hour-out-of-time proposal may be considered a technicality; however, we discussed it some days ago. It would have been great to hear your voice then, your viewpoint would have been largely welcomed when that issue was about to be decided.
>   
>> This is IMHO bad because I think there is general consensus that this change makes good sense.
>> Without this change we may have a problem ratifying the final document.
>>     
> I don't know the ground to consider there is general consenssus on it -i..e., achieving 7 or more votes for, and 2 or less votes against-; however, I repeat it was Jens who dropped 3rd Amendment, not me.
>
> Also, from the date of Jens' dropping of 3rd Amendment (6th of November) and the date of amendments proposal's deadline (8th of November), you and any other people who may have considered unquestionable to propose and support that amendment had 48 hours, 2 days to step into the issue and say "hey, if Jens is going to drop it, I will rescue it". You didn't.
>
> Regarding the blocking issue -i.e., "without this change we may have a problem ratifying the final document"-, and considering what I've just said -nobody rescued 3rd Amendment in spite of having enough time (it was only required to copy & paste it)-, after the voting window I will be quite keen to talk with you, and anybody thinking like you, about this blocking issue. I can in advance tell you that such Amendment is based in false premises -in spite of that, if may have been proposed anyway but ... Jens dropped it and nobody rescued it-.
>   
Problem is that there is nothing in the rules for annulling amendments.

If this was possible, it could be abused: If there was some change I did
not want, I could propose it as an amendment so nobody else would
propose it, and annull it just before the deadline, when nobody else
would have time to re-propose it.

The wiki was updated to annull amendment 3 on the 7th of November - the
day before the deadline. Surely you do not expect us all to constantly
monitor the wiki to check if amendments are annulled, constantly
reloading the page as the deadline approaches? In particular not when
there is no rule allowing amendment annulling.

If Jens had not been faster in proposing this, we would have proposed
it, and we would have marked it as blocking.

We consider this change, originally proposed by RMS on this list and
formally proposed by Jens, extremely important. With the current text,
we spread one of the pro-copyright lobby's lies, and this is just as bad
as having the text say "copyright is property", or "copyright
infringement is theft".

>> Amendment 5  +1
>>
>> This is a simple grammar correction. If this is not passed we have an interesting question: Should
>> translations also have a grammar error here?
>>     
> It was Jens who dropped the amendment, not me; so, it wasn't dropped because of being a grammar correction.
>
> If you want to, and as long as they're not conceptual, semantic changes -they should have been done within the amending time window-, we can discuss whether to review Second Draft to correct orthographic & grammar mistakes.
>   
I think it would be a good idea to have somebody with english as his
native language to go through the document, and point out grammar and
spelling mistakes. This should probably be done after the voting has
updated the text, and before we start the ratification process.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.