We Discuss _Proposed_ methods.

[Mike Ossipoff]

Steve Eppley writes:
> 
> Mike O wrote:
> --snip--
> >Demorep & Bruce: How would you feel about "methods-all-encompassing"? 
> >You could discuss many, many methods, without putting that
> >discussion on election-methods-list, where the Single-Winner
> >Committee has a specific task to do, choosing among a few proposed
> >methods.
> 
> My recollection is that this EM list was not created just for
> single-winner work.  At the time, there were a few people using
> ordinary group cc:s for two separate small discussions.  One was the
> Single Winner Committee, the other was a group focussed on whether
> the ER list format should be changed/split.  Rob's EM list was
> created more in response to the latter group's "decision" to split
> the ER list, and the SWC was invited to share the new list.  Rob's 
> primary purpose for this list is to produce educational documents, 
> I think; a vote for a sw recommendation is a tolerable distraction, 
> since it won't take much time and may serve a useful purpose.
> 
> So I think it will be a matter of individual self-discipline to
> avoid spending too much time on interesting distractions (like new
> and wondrous voting methods), much as it is in day-to-day life. 
> 
> ---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)
> .-

It isn't clear what Rob's problem is. The sw topic-range of 
the sw discussion was agreed-upon at the outset. Why does
it bother Rob when I remind people of that topic agreement?

Mike

> 


--