Re: Problem in Referendum Rules: tie can't happen

["Vincent Untz" <vuntz gnome org>]

On Thu, October 27, 2005 13:21, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 12:54 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Sorry for answering so late: your mail was stuck in moderation...
> > Well, in the case of a tie, a second "turn" or something should happen,
> > shouldn't it? If this is only a problem of wording, then we can change
> > it but I don't have a better proposition :-)
>
> No, I don't think this is a problem of wording. It's a bad problem. The
> second turn may also result in a tie, so that won't really do.
>
> For board elections, that is a problem, but for referendums, I guess the
> best option for resolving ties is to remain with status quo. You can't
> change this in the first round, so if a tie happens, you should run a
> second referendum. But if you do that, you should clearly mention that a
> second tie will be resolved with remaining with status quo.

Well, it won't work in some cases. For example, if a referendum would
happen to ask "Should a representative of the Foundation meet Bill G.?",
there's no status quo.

Also, note that there's no specified rules for the second referendum, so
we could do what you're suggesting.

After some thinking, I would say that in case of a tie, then a vote should
occur in the board.

It's a bit late to change the rules for this referendum, but we'll
definitely need to take this into account for future votes.

Thanks,

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.