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

[David MENTRE]

Hello John,

skaller <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

Yes. But we wanted to be able to delegate different domains (i.e. tags)
to different delegates. Certain domains are not comparable, e.g. Justice
and Ecology.

> 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.

Interesting suggestion. So you propose to have:

 me > A("u") > B("u","t") > C(all)

A can only vote on questions with tag "u" for me.

However, I'm wondering if our proposed scheme of manual conflict
resolution (cf. my answser to Thomas) does not produce the same result:
a (linear?) ordering of delegates and their associated tags.

> 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.

Having a system easy for voters is of crucial importance. So I'm reading
your proposal with great interest.

Yours,
d.
-- 
pub  1024D/A3AD7A2A 2004-10-03 David MENTRE <address@hidden>
 5996 CC46 4612 9CA4 3562  D7AC 6C67 9E96 A3AD 7A2A