[Koha] Koha license upgrade ballot design

[Reed Wade]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist at agogme.com> wrote:


> On Mon, January 10, 2011 01:15, Reed Wade wrote:
>
>
>> Feels like we're thinking way too hard about this. It might simplify
>> things to look directly at our situation instead of getting too
>> clever.
>
> Whether the issue is about what ballot design or what voting method best
> maximises the preferences of voters is an important one which goes well
> beyond this particular case.  Reaching some helpful conclusions about both
> ballot design and voting methods will be helpful for guiding the
> procedures for any future votes in which the voting method may effect the
> result.

If the discussion relates to decisions other than the immediate one
then yes. I'm all for better representation than a simple vote would
allow. And I do expect that other topics we may face could use that
sort of treatment.

Being raised in the US and now living in NZ it's all the more clear to
me that I was lied to when they told me the US was a perfect
representational voting paradise.


> If a ballot with approval options expressed independently from one another
> would be constructed as described by Reed, what would the following
> overall result mean?
>
> I approve of upgrading the Koha copyright license to:
>
> GPL 3, invoked with an or later version option.  Yes wins.
>
> AGPL 3, invoked with an or later version option.  Yes wins.


My unstated presumption there is is that the case of wanting AGPL but
not wanting GPL3 if AGPL wasn't accepted is oddball enough that it
made no sense to worry with. (Do you like cake or cake w/ icing? No, I
demand cake with icing but without the cake. (Not a perfect analogy.))

So, it's not so ambiguous in the above case (which is even what I
would expect the outcome to be). I agree tho that those assumptions
should be made clear and opportunities for counter cases made before
any vote is designed -- sort of what we're doing right now.

-reed