Re: [Demexp-dev] Delegation and ocamlgraph: an example and a list of issues

[skaller]

On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 19:43 +0200, David MENTRE wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Thanks to the help of ocamlgraph authors, I've built an example of
> delegation graph using ocamlgraph. I'm going to list on this example the
> list of issues we must solve to have a correct delegation mechanism in
> demexp. 

I would have thought it should work like this:

I can delegate to A,B,C in that order to vote for me
on issues, but I can vote too.

If I vote, my vote is final, otherwise if A votes
their vote is final, otherwise B then C, if no votes
then there is no vote.

Simple. A linear sequence, and tags are irrelevant:
a delegate can vote on ALL issues for me.

So basically:

My lowest preference is to a general Political Party.
For special interests I nominate a Special Interest
Delegate to vote for me, that overrides my Political Party.
And if I disagree with the Special delegate I vote myself.

The delegates will *offer to me* to vote certain
ways on certain issues, and I choose them on that
basis. If they vote contrary to their stated policy,
or vote on issues they said they would not, then
that is MY problem, nothing to do with demexp
(except it should of course report how my delegates
voted so I can check up on them).

If you want to make it more complex, you can have
me nominate delegates with tag restrictions, so they
can only vote on certain issues with the tags I
authorise. This changes nothing: there is still
a single unique linear global ordering of delegates,
just that some cannot vote on some issues.

This is a bit harder to implement, but not much.

The key point is: a linear order is easy to program
and easy for voters, and anything more complex will
be hard to program and totally impossible for voters
to manage.

So in the diagram, the answer is simple: conflicts are
resolved by a linear priority.

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sourceforge dot net>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part