THE FAQ POLL IS NOW OPEN

[Saari at aol.com]

>Mike Saari proposed some rules for voting on EM's faq, but his rules
>aren't consistent with those mandated by Rob Lanphier.

I asked Rob if it was ok to make several changes to his version of the
starting rules, and he said it was alright.

>We have a much longer official faq, authored by Mike Ossipoff, as
>recently pointed out by Rob. 

The impression I got from Rob was that there had been several attempts to
generate a FAQ, but that they had gotten derailed along the way (perhaps by
arguments along the way regarding procedure, perhaps by there being several
versions by several different people).  Anyway, he asked me to take over the
FAQ procedure so I have done so.  Any previous material can certainly be
incorporated according to the wishes of the group.  The starting rules I have
provided should create a workable base for this group without requiring
further unilateral decisions on my part.  

>Rob neglected to specify what we should do when there are three or
>more alternatives to be voted on. 

One method within the existing rules is to propose each alternative
separately.  If/when this proves to be inadequate, anyone can propose another
method.  (I am not convinced this will ever be necessary.)

>The 2:1 passing threshold coupled
>with yes/no voting instead of preference voting will irrationally
>privilege quite a few decisions which don't deserve being privileged
>over competing alternatives.  I'm reluctant to participate in an
>irrational process. 

The initial seed rules were created unilaterally, to be sure, but you have to
start somewhere.  The initial FAQ is empty, meaning that all changes to the
content are by group decision (with no person more privileged than anyone
else).  This does mean that early decisions, once approved, carry some weight
due to "history".  This is not an unfair bias, however, as all members still
have equal weight.  Think of it as an ecological niche to be filled.  The
early colonizers have a distinct advantage over later arrivals, yet later
arrivals can still supplant the early ones if they have a superior aspect.
This may provide an incentive to supply good ideas earlier, not later,
although you may get a good result eventually either way.  I don't see an
irrational privilege, though.

You may choose to participate or not, although I think the process will work
better the more knowledgable people participate.  If not, though, perhaps
you'll enjoy watching to see how it turns out.

BTW, the voting terms are ASSERT/OPPOSE, not "Yes/No".  I would appreciate
your using these more accurate descriptors.

Mike S