[EM] What have I started?!

[Michael Ossipoff]

By being the "bad-guy" again, as always, I caused a discussioni on how to 
deal with bad guys, which led into a meeting-procedure discussion.

Though I'm the bad-guy, I'd like to add a few comments.

I agree with the majority, who feel that we don't need Robert's Rules. We 
could devise a simple, minimal direct democracy framework. Starting with no 
framework, a person makes a suggestion, and, if someone challenges it, a 
vote is the obvious solution. It goes from there.

But I agree that having a chair could be a good thing, but it only makes 
sense if the chair is the list-owner. He, for instance, would choose the 
voting system when there's to be a vote.

If the list-owner isn't willing to chair, then minimal-rules direct 
democracy will work fine.

How to vote? Range-Voting is ok for public elections, but it's no good here, 
because strategizers will take advantage of sincere voters. The purpose, 
here, of RV would be to aggregate sincere ratings. But we won't be getting 
sincere ratings. Or at least we'll probably get enough insincere ratings to 
make nonsense out of the notion of aggregating sincere ratings. Some voters 
will top-rate some options and bottom-rate the rest. Approvl is incomparably 
better here, because a sincere ballot is pretty much the same as a strategic 
one. No sucker-abuse problem.

Condorcet is the method to use here. Because of having so few voters, 
BeatpathWinner is the method to use. It's a popular method too. It's a 
winning-votes Condorcet version, with many properties that many people like.

But unless we have consensus on that, or unless the list-owner specifies 
BeatpathWinner, how do we choose? Well, we have a voting system here: Last 
time we voted on voting systems, Approval won by landslide. It was Condorcet 
Winner, and won in RV, and by every rank-count we used.

Mike Ossipoff