[UK-TUG] Obtaining a clear outcome from the SGM

[Jonathan Fine]

Warning: This is long. If you're not used to mathematical and logical
reasoning I suggest you skip to MOST POPULAR MEANS OF DISTRIBUTION.

Summary: Considering motions exactly as submitted can lead to strange and
non-optimal consequences.

Hi David

Please would you consider the below and give me your opinion on it. Perhaps
the main conclusion is that voting to decide on just three of our six
motions can be complicated.

I apologise for not responding to your revised ordering principle and
perhaps being a little polemical. Please allow me to backtrack a little and
draw out some consequences of your revised ordering principle. The
conclusion I come to is that minor procedural changes to the motions can
produce a voting process that is more reasonable, fairer and conducive to
harmony.

For simplicity suppose there are just three motions. All these motions have
the same priority, according to your revised ordering principle. So my
simplifying assumption completely removes that from the discussion.

MA: If dissolution, distribute funds using Method A.
MB: Dissolve and distribute funds using Method B.
MC: Dissolve.

Later to simplify we will suppose that if dissolution falls then the "If
dissolution, distribute" state is of no importance. Call this Assumption
Fall. Later we will use motion

MB': If dissolution, distribute funds using Method A.

So the question is: In what order are MA, MB and MC discussed and voted on?
If MA and MB are the only motions then I believe we agree that MA must come
before MB. And similarly if MA and MC are the only motions then again MA
must come first.

Please let me assume that the ideal order is MA then MB then MC. I don't
think (MA, MC, MB) will affect my reasoning.

First here's a problem of consistency and symmetry.  On Assumption Fall we
would expect that replacing Motion B by Motion B' would not change the SGM
outcome. But it might, because it now allows two orderings, namely (MA,
MB', MC) and (MB', MA, MC), when previously there was only one. David and I
are both mathematicians, and perhaps he shares my disquiet and the lack of
symmetry of (MA, MB, MC) given Assumption Fall.

MOST POPULAR MEANS OF DISTRIBUTION
The second problem is more serious. The following motions admit an
'elimination' form of voting.

MA: If dissolution, distribute funds using Method A.
MB': If dissolution, distribute funds using Method B.
MC: Dissolve.

First a straight vote between MA and MB'. Call the winner MX. Now a
straight vote between MX and MC. Call the winner MY. Now a straight vote on
MY to decide whether to dissolve or continue.

In practice this method should allow the SGM to first choose the most
popular method for distributing funds, and then to decide on dissolution.
In practice this should maximise the vote for dissolve. This would increase
harmony among the dissolve supporters. I also see modifying MB to MB' as
beneficial because it leads to a more reasonable and fair sequence of votes.

I believe that in many in-person meetings such a process is obtained by
making procedural changes to the motions, sometimes via procedural motions.
A common procedural motion is to take a long multipart motion in parts.

with kind regards

Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/uktug-announce/attachments/20211015/7e4aa5ba/attachment.html>