General Resolution draft against spam.

[Santiago Vila]

Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.


Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:


To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:

- The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
posted something to any debian list.

The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to subscribe to those
lists and receive messages from subscribers, but the debian project may
implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege.

We will encourage other debian list archives to mirror us, and forbid
debian archives which do not hide addresses.


To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from maintainers from
incoming.debian.org:

- The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.


To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from maintainers in general:

- The public web pages and ftp archives will be modified so that it
becomes impossible for someone without special privileges to know the
actual email address of the individual package maintainers. It should
still be possible to mail someone at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]",
but no such addresses will be present on web pages.

The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to have a Debian
system in one's machine and simply looking at the available file
in /var/lib/dpkg or looking at the different changelogs, but but the
debian project may implement other alternative methods to gain this
privilege.


To avoid list posts to disseminate more than required:

- There will be no mail to news gateway having email addresses in clear.
Any such existing gateway will be forbidden by list policy, which
subscribers should accept if they subscribe. If this is not doable,
everything will be unsubscribed and everybody should write "yes, I
accept" before subscribing again.



To avoid spam in debian lists:

- Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of
obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing
to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using
an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special
white list.

No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to
/dev/null (so to speak).

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Adam Heath]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:

> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> 
> Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:

The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.

You can't force anyone to do anything, period.

If you want something done, do it yourself.

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.

I object to this proposal in its entirety.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpXA8oMFJP9G.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Santiago Vila]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
>
> The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.
>
> You can't force anyone to do anything, period.
>
> If you want something done, do it yourself.

Not everything works that way, and you know it.

It may be badly worded, but it's not blatantly wrong. Add "provided
someone writes a suitable patch" everywhere you see it fits if you
don't like the current wording.

It would be quite pointless to write patches if the consensus is that they
should not be applied.

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[David N. Welton]

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If you want something done, do it yourself.

Maybe telling him off was the right thing to do, but not in this way,
unless you propose to give him root to let him do things himself.

Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
"democracy" in the form of our system of resolutions, the
constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
can't directly do ourselves.

We need to either accept this, or get rid of all this vote crap as a
sham.  I vote for door numer #2.

-- 
David N. Welton
   Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/
 Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/
   Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

sorry for replying to the wrong list

> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> ===
>= Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
>
>
> To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:
>
> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
> posted something to any debian list.
>
> The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to subscribe to those
> lists and receive messages from subscribers, but the debian project may
> implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege.
>
> We will encourage other debian list archives to mirror us, and forbid
> debian archives which do not hide addresses.
>

I have gone back and asked a poster questions and people have tracked me down 
from my answers.  Removing this from the lists would diminish their value, 
especially debian-user and debian-mentor.

>
> To avoid list posts to disseminate more than required:
>
> - There will be no mail to news gateway having email addresses in clear.
> Any such existing gateway will be forbidden by list policy, which
> subscribers should accept if they subscribe. If this is not doable,
> everything will be unsubscribed and everybody should write "yes, I
> accept" before subscribing again.
>

see my comment above.  Of list mailing should be possible.

>
>
> To avoid spam in debian lists:
>
> - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of
> obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing
> to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using
> an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special
> white list.
>
> No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
> If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to
> /dev/null (so to speak).

I like the open lists we have and with spamassassin or some other solution 
properly tweaked we should be able to leave the lists open.

We all hate the extra garbage but removing the usefulness of Debian's 
communications to fight spam is also wrong.  Let's not fight disease by 
killing the patient.

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Peter Palfrader]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> 
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.

me too

yours,
peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :  The  universal
   | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-http://www.debian.org/


pgpBQbQtRnez1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Jim Penny]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> 
> 

I also object to this in its entirety.  

Now, if you want to be helpful, introduce tarpitting into qmail,
sendmail, exim, and postfix.  That might actually accomplish something.

Jim Penny

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Jérôme Marant]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.

How about giving arguments?

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Bastian Kleineidam]

Santiago,

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.

> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
> posted something to any debian list.
> 
> The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to subscribe to those
> lists and receive messages from subscribers, but the debian project may
> implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege.
No, I want to send mail to lists even if I am not subscribed.

> We will encourage other debian list archives to mirror us, and forbid
> debian archives which do not hide addresses.
No, I want my debian email adress copy-and-paste'able.

> - The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
> and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
> maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.
No, I want my email adress publicly available so that people can
mail me easily.

> - The public web pages and ftp archives will be modified so that it
> becomes impossible for someone without special privileges to know the
> actual email address of the individual package maintainers. It should
> still be possible to mail someone at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]",
> but no such addresses will be present on web pages.
No, I want people to mail me about my packages without "special privileges".

> The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to have a Debian
> system in one's machine and simply looking at the available file
> in /var/lib/dpkg or looking at the different changelogs, but but the
> debian project may implement other alternative methods to gain this
> privilege.
No, this is not user-friendly.

> - There will be no mail to news gateway having email addresses in clear.
> Any such existing gateway will be forbidden by list policy, which
> subscribers should accept if they subscribe. If this is not doable,
> everything will be unsubscribed and everybody should write "yes, I
> accept" before subscribing again.
No, I want people reading news being able to see my email adress too.

> - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of
> obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing
> to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using
> an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special
> white list.
No, no, no. This "your from: adress is wrong"-stuff has bitten my before
at some fucked up mailing lists.

> No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
This one would be nice, but moderating high-traffic lists is a burden.
I would not want to do this.

> If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to
> /dev/null (so to speak).
No, no dropping of emails.


So, I said pretty much no for all of the above. Why? Because you leave
no options left.
Email filtering must be optional, not enforced. I use my own filtering
rules and I am happy.


Cheers,
-- Bastian


pgppkXkmkzgEE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Greg Norris]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:44:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> 
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.

Ditto.

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Santiago Vila]

Enough comments.

I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official).

Thanks everybody.

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Colin Walters]

On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:59, Santiago Vila wrote:

> - The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
> and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
> maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.

That is completely insane.

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Bas Zoetekouw]

Hi Branden!

You wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> 
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.

Me too.

-- 
Kind regards,
++
| Bas Zoetekouw  | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
++ 

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying

[Manoj Srivastava]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi folks,

Raul Miller and I have been hashing this off line for a bit,
 and this is what we have come up with (most of the driving came from
 Raul, I am merely pushing this into the -vote list):

It still needs to be reviewed, and we'll need additional language
which replaces the name "Concorde", throughout the constitution.

- --
  A.3. Voting procedure
1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
   separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
   combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further
   Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire resolution
   procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period. No
   quorum is required for an amendment. The Further Discussion
   option must not have any supermajority requirements. The
   default supermajority requirement is one of 1:1, and shall
   apply to all options on the ballot unless otherwise specified. 
 --
   [Delete 2, since we do not need two votes, one to finalize the
resolution, and a second to actually vote on it, the first ballot
may now contain the resolution, all amendments, and the options
could be a) the original resolution, b) resolution + amendment 1;
c) resolution + amendment 2 ; d) Further Discussion]
  
- --
  A.6. Concorde Vote Counting
  
1. This is used to determine the winner amongst a list of options.
   Each ballot paper gives a ranking of the voter's preferred
   options. (The ranking need not be complete.)
2. Option A is said to Beat option B if more specify that option
   A is over option B than prefer B to A.
3. Option B is said to be in the Beat Path of option A if option
   A beats option B, or if there is an option C in the beat path
   of option A where option C beats option B.
4. An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there is no
   option B where both A is in the beat path of B and B is not
   in the beat path of A.
5. All options which do not beat the default option by their
   supermajority ratio are discarded, and references to them
   in ballot papers will be ignored. 
6. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
   which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
   are not then the default option wins after all. For votes
   requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used
   when checking whether the quorum has been reached.
7. If no option beats the default option, the default option wins.
8. If only one option remains in the schultz set, that option is
   the winner.
9. If all options in the schultz set are tied with each other,
   the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from the
   schultz set.
   10. Otherwise, there are multiple options in the schultz set and
   they are not defeated equally:
  a. The weakest defeat is identified.  The weakest defeat
 is the fewest votes against any option in the schultz
 set, and (for that many votes against) the most votes
 for the corresponding option in the schultz set.
  b. If more than one option has the exact same number of
 votes in favor and the exact same number of votes opposed,
 and if those numbers are the same as for the weakest defeat,
 all these option pairs are considered to be examples
 of the weakest defeat.
  c. The schultz set is then refigured with the Beats of the
 weakest defeats eliminated. 
  d. We resume at step 8 with the new schultz set to determine
 the winner.
- --

manoj
- -- 
 Suppose for a moment that the automobile industry had developed at
 the same rate as computers and over the same period: how much cheaper
 and more efficient would the current models be?  If you have not
 already heard the analogy, the answer is shattering.  Today you would
 be able to buy a Rolls-Royce for $2.75, it would do three million
 miles to the gallon, and it would deliver enough power to drive the
 Queen Elizabeth II.  And if you were interested in miniaturization,
 you could place half a dozen of them on a pinhead. Christopher Evans
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by: Debian GNU/Linux -> Emacs -> Gnus -> Mailcrypt

iD8DBQE9rcupIbrau

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Peter Palfrader]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:

[subscribers automatically whitelisted]

> No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator

If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too.
Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also
work. The rest would be manually reviews by a team of moderators.

If someone implements this I might be willing to join that team.


> If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to
> /dev/null (so to speak).

default should still be post.

yours,
peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :  The  universal
   | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-http://www.debian.org/


pgpSQahmikvGf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Brian May]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
> posted something to any debian list.

The number of useless postings of the following form will increase:

"Can the person who posted http://lists.debian.org//> please
contact me? I want to know if I can please (get a copy of their source|
ask about how it works|find out of that really is a typo|find out
if the information is now obsolete|find out when/if it is going
to be implemented|etc)?

"Sorry about posting this to the mailing list, but I can't seem to
work out what your E-Mail address is from the mailing list archive."
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Pete Ryland]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.

I'd just like to say I agree with the proposal.

Pete

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Joey Hess]

A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
   abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
   
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
   to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
   to be the type of project which I could use as a user, nor contribute to
   as a developer. I would leave.

C. Glad to see many others agree, and hope you've dropped this
   completly.

-- 
see shy jo

[1] If it's not, that's a bug in the constitution. Any quibblers who would
like to play constitutional lawyer, please don't list-reply.


pgpKsNnAh8uXG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> --
>   A.3. Voting procedure
> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
>separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
>combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further
>Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire resolution
>procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period. No
  ^^
>quorum is required for an amendment. The Further Discussion
 ^^^

Without the second vote, that's no longer appropriate -- you _must_
obtain a quorum in the first vote for an option to pass, otherwise the
quorum requirement is meaningless.

>option must not have any supermajority requirements. The
>default supermajority requirement is one of 1:1, and shall
>apply to all options on the ballot unless otherwise specified.

That whole paragraph seems a bit unclear, really. Does it make sense to try
to automatically combine "independent" amendments? If we have, say:

"non-free is evil, change the social contract and kill it from
 the archives"

as the GR, and two amendments:

"change the social contract, but only remove unmaintained and buggy
 packages from non-free, not kill it entirely"

and

"kill contrib as well"

would it really be unreasonable to expect people to propose and second

"change the social contract, and remove unmaintained/buggy non-free 
 and contrib packages, so that when everything has been replaced by
 free software, the components will be empty"

specifically?

Then you can have something as simple as:

Each set of related resolutions and amendments (that is,
resolutions that cannot be both adopted), and the default option
"Further Discussion", are voted on in a single ballot, using
preferential voting.

> --
>   A.6. Concorde Vote Counting
> 1. This is used to determine the winner amongst a list of options.
>Each ballot paper gives a ranking of the voter's preferred
>options. (The ranking need not be complete.)
> 2. Option A is said to Beat option B if more specify that option
>A is over option B than prefer B to A.
> 3. Option B is said to be in the Beat Path of option A if option
>A beats option B, or if there is an option C in the beat path
>of option A where option C beats option B.

> 4. An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there is no

YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?

>option B where both A is in the beat path of B and B is not
>in the beat path of A.

If so, it's defined as: "The Schwartz set is the smallest non-empty set
of options such that no option within the set is beaten by any option
outside of the set." It's probably easier to say it that way (since you
don't need to discuss "beat path" at all then).

It'd probably be more intuitive to say "A dominates B if A beats B,
or there is some other option C, where C dominates B and A beats C" or
something similar, so it's clear which direction the beat path goes in.
That rephrases the above as: "An option A is said to be in the Schultz
set if there is no option B where both B dominates A, but A does not
dominate B".

> 5. All options which do not beat the default option by their
>supermajority ratio are discarded, and references to them
>in ballot papers will be ignored. 
> 6. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
>which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
>are not then the default option wins after all. For votes
>requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used
>when checking whether the quorum has been reached.

Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
"If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
option.  If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
to it in ballot papers will be ignored." Alternatively (6) should be moved
to after the winner is determined. Doing it that way would make the method
less decisive than otherwise.

> 7. If no option beats the default option, the default option wins.

Why this special case? The Perl program I wrote for this uses the
following system:

# 1. Calculate Schwartz set according to uneliminated defeats.
# 2. If there are no defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
#   2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
#   2b. Otherwise, there is a tie amongst the Schwatz set.
#   2c. End
# 3. If there are defeat

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:06:00AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
> "democracy" in the form of our system of resolutions, the
> constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
> can't directly do ourselves.

Well, no. That's not the only way to do things, and should in fact be the
absolute *last resort*. The *best* way to do things is to convince people
that what you're saying is beneficial, doesn't have any drawbacks (or,
if it does, change what you're saying so as to avoid the drawbacks), or,
in the absolute worst case, that the drawbacks are minor and outweighed
by orders of magnitude by the benefits.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgpVKsN5Fitm0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
> "If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
> option.  If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
> to it in ballot papers will be ignored." Alternatively (6) should be moved
> to after the winner is determined. Doing it that way would make the method
> less decisive than otherwise.

Oh, also, it was considered ambiguous by some last time round whether
the setps in that section of the constitution were intended to be taken
in order, or if they could be rearranged if that was the only way to
make sense of them, or what. It'd be good to clarify that now too.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''


pgpJ0kS6qCRpm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

General Resolution draft against spam.

[Santiago Vila]

Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.


Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:


To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:

- The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
posted something to any debian list.

The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to subscribe to those
lists and receive messages from subscribers, but the debian project may
implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege.

We will encourage other debian list archives to mirror us, and forbid
debian archives which do not hide addresses.


To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from maintainers from
incoming.debian.org:

- The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.


To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from maintainers in general:

- The public web pages and ftp archives will be modified so that it
becomes impossible for someone without special privileges to know the
actual email address of the individual package maintainers. It should
still be possible to mail someone at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]",
but no such addresses will be present on web pages.

The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to have a Debian
system in one's machine and simply looking at the available file
in /var/lib/dpkg or looking at the different changelogs, but but the
debian project may implement other alternative methods to gain this
privilege.


To avoid list posts to disseminate more than required:

- There will be no mail to news gateway having email addresses in clear.
Any such existing gateway will be forbidden by list policy, which
subscribers should accept if they subscribe. If this is not doable,
everything will be unsubscribed and everybody should write "yes, I
accept" before subscribing again.



To avoid spam in debian lists:

- Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of
obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing
to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using
an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special
white list.

No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to
/dev/null (so to speak).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Adam Heath]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:

> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> 
> Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:

The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.

You can't force anyone to do anything, period.

If you want something done, do it yourself.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.

I object to this proposal in its entirety.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |



msg01807/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Santiago Vila]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
>
> The rest of your email is ignorable, because the above is blatantly wrong.
>
> You can't force anyone to do anything, period.
>
> If you want something done, do it yourself.

Not everything works that way, and you know it.

It may be badly worded, but it's not blatantly wrong. Add "provided
someone writes a suitable patch" everywhere you see it fits if you
don't like the current wording.

It would be quite pointless to write patches if the consensus is that they
should not be applied.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[David N. Welton]

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If you want something done, do it yourself.

Maybe telling him off was the right thing to do, but not in this way,
unless you propose to give him root to let him do things himself.

Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
"democracy" in the form of our system of resolutions, the
constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
can't directly do ourselves.

We need to either accept this, or get rid of all this vote crap as a
sham.  I vote for door numer #2.

-- 
David N. Welton
   Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/
 Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/
   Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Sean 'Shaleh' Perry]

sorry for replying to the wrong list

> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> ===
>= Those who have in Debian the power to do so, will implement the following:
>
>
> To avoid spammers harvesting addresses from the list archives:
>
> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
> posted something to any debian list.
>
> The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to subscribe to those
> lists and receive messages from subscribers, but the debian project may
> implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege.
>
> We will encourage other debian list archives to mirror us, and forbid
> debian archives which do not hide addresses.
>

I have gone back and asked a poster questions and people have tracked me down 
from my answers.  Removing this from the lists would diminish their value, 
especially debian-user and debian-mentor.

>
> To avoid list posts to disseminate more than required:
>
> - There will be no mail to news gateway having email addresses in clear.
> Any such existing gateway will be forbidden by list policy, which
> subscribers should accept if they subscribe. If this is not doable,
> everything will be unsubscribed and everybody should write "yes, I
> accept" before subscribing again.
>

see my comment above.  Of list mailing should be possible.

>
>
> To avoid spam in debian lists:
>
> - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of
> obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing
> to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using
> an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special
> white list.
>
> No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
> If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to
> /dev/null (so to speak).

I like the open lists we have and with spamassassin or some other solution 
properly tweaked we should be able to leave the lists open.

We all hate the extra garbage but removing the usefulness of Debian's 
communications to fight spam is also wrong.  Let's not fight disease by 
killing the patient.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Peter Palfrader]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> 
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.

me too

yours,
peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :  The  universal
   | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-http://www.debian.org/



msg01811/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Jim Penny]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> 
> 

I also object to this in its entirety.  

Now, if you want to be helpful, introduce tarpitting into qmail,
sendmail, exim, and postfix.  That might actually accomplish something.

Jim Penny


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Jérôme Marant]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
>
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.

How about giving arguments?

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Bastian Kleineidam]

Santiago,

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.

> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
> posted something to any debian list.
> 
> The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to subscribe to those
> lists and receive messages from subscribers, but the debian project may
> implement other alternative methods to gain this privilege.
No, I want to send mail to lists even if I am not subscribed.

> We will encourage other debian list archives to mirror us, and forbid
> debian archives which do not hide addresses.
No, I want my debian email adress copy-and-paste'able.

> - The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
> and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
> maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.
No, I want my email adress publicly available so that people can
mail me easily.

> - The public web pages and ftp archives will be modified so that it
> becomes impossible for someone without special privileges to know the
> actual email address of the individual package maintainers. It should
> still be possible to mail someone at "[EMAIL PROTECTED]",
> but no such addresses will be present on web pages.
No, I want people to mail me about my packages without "special privileges".

> The natural way of obtaining this privilege will be to have a Debian
> system in one's machine and simply looking at the available file
> in /var/lib/dpkg or looking at the different changelogs, but but the
> debian project may implement other alternative methods to gain this
> privilege.
No, this is not user-friendly.

> - There will be no mail to news gateway having email addresses in clear.
> Any such existing gateway will be forbidden by list policy, which
> subscribers should accept if they subscribe. If this is not doable,
> everything will be unsubscribed and everybody should write "yes, I
> accept" before subscribing again.
No, I want people reading news being able to see my email adress too.

> - Being able to post is a privilege, not a right. The natural way of
> obtaining this privilege, for so called "open" lists, is by subscribing
> to them and using the same address in the From: field, or by using
> an email addresses which has been previously subscribed to a special
> white list.
No, no, no. This "your from: adress is wrong"-stuff has bitten my before
at some fucked up mailing lists.

> No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator
This one would be nice, but moderating high-traffic lists is a burden.
I would not want to do this.

> If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to
> /dev/null (so to speak).
No, no dropping of emails.


So, I said pretty much no for all of the above. Why? Because you leave
no options left.
Email filtering must be optional, not enforced. I use my own filtering
rules and I am happy.


Cheers,
-- Bastian



msg01814/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Greg Norris]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 12:44:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> 
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.

Ditto.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Santiago Vila]

Enough comments.

I withdraw my proposal (better said: I won't make it official).

Thanks everybody.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Colin Walters]

On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 12:59, Santiago Vila wrote:

> - The Debian source package format will be modified so that .dsc
> and .changes files do not need to have the complete email of the
> maintainer, only his name and gpg signature.

That is completely insane.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Bas Zoetekouw]

Hi Branden!

You wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.
> 
> I object to this proposal in its entirety.

Me too.

-- 
Kind regards,
++
| Bas Zoetekouw  | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |  a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
++ 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet votetallying

[Manoj Srivastava]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi folks,

Raul Miller and I have been hashing this off line for a bit,
 and this is what we have come up with (most of the driving came from
 Raul, I am merely pushing this into the -vote list):

It still needs to be reviewed, and we'll need additional language
which replaces the name "Concorde", throughout the constitution.

- --
  A.3. Voting procedure
1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
   separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
   combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further
   Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire resolution
   procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period. No
   quorum is required for an amendment. The Further Discussion
   option must not have any supermajority requirements. The
   default supermajority requirement is one of 1:1, and shall
   apply to all options on the ballot unless otherwise specified. 
 --
   [Delete 2, since we do not need two votes, one to finalize the
resolution, and a second to actually vote on it, the first ballot
may now contain the resolution, all amendments, and the options
could be a) the original resolution, b) resolution + amendment 1;
c) resolution + amendment 2 ; d) Further Discussion]
  
- --
  A.6. Concorde Vote Counting
  
1. This is used to determine the winner amongst a list of options.
   Each ballot paper gives a ranking of the voter's preferred
   options. (The ranking need not be complete.)
2. Option A is said to Beat option B if more specify that option
   A is over option B than prefer B to A.
3. Option B is said to be in the Beat Path of option A if option
   A beats option B, or if there is an option C in the beat path
   of option A where option C beats option B.
4. An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there is no
   option B where both A is in the beat path of B and B is not
   in the beat path of A.
5. All options which do not beat the default option by their
   supermajority ratio are discarded, and references to them
   in ballot papers will be ignored. 
6. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
   which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
   are not then the default option wins after all. For votes
   requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used
   when checking whether the quorum has been reached.
7. If no option beats the default option, the default option wins.
8. If only one option remains in the schultz set, that option is
   the winner.
9. If all options in the schultz set are tied with each other,
   the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from the
   schultz set.
   10. Otherwise, there are multiple options in the schultz set and
   they are not defeated equally:
  a. The weakest defeat is identified.  The weakest defeat
 is the fewest votes against any option in the schultz
 set, and (for that many votes against) the most votes
 for the corresponding option in the schultz set.
  b. If more than one option has the exact same number of
 votes in favor and the exact same number of votes opposed,
 and if those numbers are the same as for the weakest defeat,
 all these option pairs are considered to be examples
 of the weakest defeat.
  c. The schultz set is then refigured with the Beats of the
 weakest defeats eliminated. 
  d. We resume at step 8 with the new schultz set to determine
 the winner.
- --

manoj
- -- 
 Suppose for a moment that the automobile industry had developed at
 the same rate as computers and over the same period: how much cheaper
 and more efficient would the current models be?  If you have not
 already heard the analogy, the answer is shattering.  Today you would
 be able to buy a Rolls-Royce for $2.75, it would do three million
 miles to the gallon, and it would deliver enough power to drive the
 Queen Elizabeth II.  And if you were interested in miniaturization,
 you could place half a dozen of them on a pinhead. Christopher Evans
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by: Debian GNU/Linux -> Emacs -> Gnus -> Mailcrypt

iD8DBQE9rcupIbra

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Peter Palfrader]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:

[subscribers automatically whitelisted]

> No other mail will reach the lists until it's approved by a moderator

If a poster was approved once, they get added to the white list too.
Auto Approval of mails with valid References/In-Reply-To could also
work. The rest would be manually reviews by a team of moderators.

If someone implements this I might be willing to join that team.


> If there are no moderators for a given list, these mails will go to
> /dev/null (so to speak).

default should still be post.

yours,
peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred.| : :' :  The  universal
   | `. `'  Operating System
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-http://www.debian.org/



msg01820/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Brian May]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> - The public web archives of the different debian mailing lists, past,
> present and future, will be processed so that it becomes impossible
> for an ordinary user not having special privileges to mail someone who
> posted something to any debian list.

The number of useless postings of the following form will increase:

"Can the person who posted http://lists.debian.org//> please
contact me? I want to know if I can please (get a copy of their source|
ask about how it works|find out of that really is a typo|find out
if the information is now obsolete|find out when/if it is going
to be implemented|etc)?

"Sorry about posting this to the mailing list, but I can't seem to
work out what your E-Mail address is from the mailing list archive."
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Pete Ryland]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 06:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Draft. Comments welcome. Please Cc the list, not me.

I'd just like to say I agree with the proposal.

Pete


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Joey Hess]

A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
   abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
   
B. If by some fluke all or any substantial number of these proposals came
   to pass, whether by GR ot any other means, I would no longer find Debian
   to be the type of project which I could use as a user, nor contribute to
   as a developer. I would leave.

C. Glad to see many others agree, and hope you've dropped this
   completly.

-- 
see shy jo

[1] If it's not, that's a bug in the constitution. Any quibblers who would
like to play constitutional lawyer, please don't list-reply.



msg01823/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> --
>   A.3. Voting procedure
> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
>separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
>combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further
>Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire resolution
>procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period. No
  ^^
>quorum is required for an amendment. The Further Discussion
 ^^^

Without the second vote, that's no longer appropriate -- you _must_
obtain a quorum in the first vote for an option to pass, otherwise the
quorum requirement is meaningless.

>option must not have any supermajority requirements. The
>default supermajority requirement is one of 1:1, and shall
>apply to all options on the ballot unless otherwise specified.

That whole paragraph seems a bit unclear, really. Does it make sense to try
to automatically combine "independent" amendments? If we have, say:

"non-free is evil, change the social contract and kill it from
 the archives"

as the GR, and two amendments:

"change the social contract, but only remove unmaintained and buggy
 packages from non-free, not kill it entirely"

and

"kill contrib as well"

would it really be unreasonable to expect people to propose and second

"change the social contract, and remove unmaintained/buggy non-free 
 and contrib packages, so that when everything has been replaced by
 free software, the components will be empty"

specifically?

Then you can have something as simple as:

Each set of related resolutions and amendments (that is,
resolutions that cannot be both adopted), and the default option
"Further Discussion", are voted on in a single ballot, using
preferential voting.

> --
>   A.6. Concorde Vote Counting
> 1. This is used to determine the winner amongst a list of options.
>Each ballot paper gives a ranking of the voter's preferred
>options. (The ranking need not be complete.)
> 2. Option A is said to Beat option B if more specify that option
>A is over option B than prefer B to A.
> 3. Option B is said to be in the Beat Path of option A if option
>A beats option B, or if there is an option C in the beat path
>of option A where option C beats option B.

> 4. An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there is no

YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?

>option B where both A is in the beat path of B and B is not
>in the beat path of A.

If so, it's defined as: "The Schwartz set is the smallest non-empty set
of options such that no option within the set is beaten by any option
outside of the set." It's probably easier to say it that way (since you
don't need to discuss "beat path" at all then).

It'd probably be more intuitive to say "A dominates B if A beats B,
or there is some other option C, where C dominates B and A beats C" or
something similar, so it's clear which direction the beat path goes in.
That rephrases the above as: "An option A is said to be in the Schultz
set if there is no option B where both B dominates A, but A does not
dominate B".

> 5. All options which do not beat the default option by their
>supermajority ratio are discarded, and references to them
>in ballot papers will be ignored. 
> 6. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
>which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
>are not then the default option wins after all. For votes
>requiring a supermajority, the actual number of Yes votes is used
>when checking whether the quorum has been reached.

Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
"If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
option.  If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
to it in ballot papers will be ignored." Alternatively (6) should be moved
to after the winner is determined. Doing it that way would make the method
less decisive than otherwise.

> 7. If no option beats the default option, the default option wins.

Why this special case? The Perl program I wrote for this uses the
following system:

# 1. Calculate Schwartz set according to uneliminated defeats.
# 2. If there are no defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
#   2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
#   2b. Otherwise, there is a tie amongst the Schwatz set.
#   2c. End
# 3. If there are defea

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:06:00AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> Those of us without root, as far as I can see, have only the route of
> "democracy" in the form of our system of resolutions, the
> constitution, and all that other nonsense, to get things done that we
> can't directly do ourselves.

Well, no. That's not the only way to do things, and should in fact be the
absolute *last resort*. The *best* way to do things is to convince people
that what you're saying is beneficial, doesn't have any drawbacks (or,
if it does, change what you're saying so as to avoid the drawbacks), or,
in the absolute worst case, that the drawbacks are minor and outweighed
by orders of magnitude by the benefits.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''



msg01825/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
> "If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
> option.  If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
> to it in ballot papers will be ignored." Alternatively (6) should be moved
> to after the winner is determined. Doing it that way would make the method
> less decisive than otherwise.

Oh, also, it was considered ambiguous by some last time round whether
the setps in that section of the constitution were intended to be taken
in order, or if they could be rearranged if that was the only way to
make sense of them, or what. It'd be good to clarify that now too.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''



msg01826/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

I am against this proposal as well. W should not be making
 things harder for legitimate users, treating them as acceptable
 collateral damage in the war on spam. Spam filtering works; and people
 who still have a problem should investigate
 http://crm114.sourceforge.net/ for an excellent tool.

manoj
-- 
 He who laughs last hasn't been told the terrible truth.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet votetallying

[Manoj Srivastava]

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 Anthony> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> --
 >> A.3. Voting procedure
 >> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
 >> separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the sensible
 >> combinations of amendments and options, and an option Further
 >> Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire resolution
 >> procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period. No
 Anthony>   ^^
 >> quorum is required for an amendment. The Further Discussion
 Anthony>  ^^^

 Anthony> Without the second vote, that's no longer appropriate -- you
 Anthony> _must_ obtain a quorum in the first vote for an option to
 Anthony> pass, otherwise the quorum requirement is meaningless.

My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
 with no quorum required to propose the resolution.  Amendments need
 no quorum either -- th ballot shall allow people a choice, if the
 proposer of the resolution does not modify the resolution to accept
 the amendment.

 >> option must not have any supermajority requirements. The
 >> default supermajority requirement is one of 1:1, and shall
 >> apply to all options on the ballot unless otherwise specified.

 Anthony> That whole paragraph seems a bit unclear, really. Does it
 Anthony> make sense to try to automatically combine "independent"
 Anthony> amendments? If we have, say:



 Anthony>   "non-free is evil, change the social contract and kill it from
 Anthony>the archives"
 Anthony> as the GR, and two amendments:
 Anthony>   "change the social contract, but only remove
 Anthony>unmaintained and buggy packages from non-free, not
 Anthony>kill it entirely"
 Anthony> and
 Anthony>   "kill contrib as well"
 Anthony> would it really be unreasonable to expect people to propose
 Anthony> and second 
 Anthony>   "change the social contract, and remove
 Anthony>unmaintained/buggy non-free and contrib packages, so
 Anthony>that when everything has been replaced by free
 Anthony>software, the components will be empty"
 Anthony> specifically?

I think I am confused here. The final option does not seem to
 offer all choices; do you man something like this

  a) Kill non free
  b) Kill non free, as well as contrib
  c) do not kill non free, or contrib, just remove buggy packages from them
  d) Status Quo/Further discussion

If so, I agree.

 Anthony> Then you can have something as simple as:

 Anthony>   Each set of related resolutions and amendments (that
 Anthony>   is, resolutions that cannot be both adopted), and the
 Anthony>   default option "Further Discussion", are voted on in a
 Anthony>   single ballot, using preferential voting.

 >> --
 >> A.6. Concorde Vote Counting
 >> 1. This is used to determine the winner amongst a list of options.
 >> Each ballot paper gives a ranking of the voter's preferred
 >> options. (The ranking need not be complete.)
 >> 2. Option A is said to Beat option B if more specify that option
 >> A is over option B than prefer B to A.
 >> 3. Option B is said to be in the Beat Path of option A if option
 >> A beats option B, or if there is an option C in the beat path
 >> of option A where option C beats option B.

 >> 4. An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there is no

 Anthony> YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set"
 Anthony> of some sort? 

I think this is a typo. Raul?

 >> option B where both A is in the beat path of B and B is not
 >> in the beat path of A.

 Anthony> If so, it's defined as: "The Schwartz set is the smallest
 Anthony> non-empty set of options such that no option within the set
 Anthony> is beaten by any option outside of the set." It's probably
 Anthony> easier to say it that way (since you don't need to discuss
 Anthony> "beat path" at all then).

 Anthony> It'd probably be more intuitive to say "A dominates B if A
 Anthony> beats B, or there is some other option C, where C dominates
 Anthony> B and A beats C" or something similar, so it's clear which
 Anthony> direction the beat path goes in.  That rephrases the above
 Anthony> as: "An option A is said to be in the Schultz set if there
 Anthony> is no option B where both B dominates A, but A does not
 Anthony> dominate B".

OK.

 >> 5. All options which do not beat the default option by their
 >> supermajority ratio are discarded, and references to them
 >> in ballot papers will be ignored. 
 >> 6. If a quorum is required, there must be at least that many votes
 >> which prefer the winning option to the default option. If there
 >> are not then the default

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:04:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> A. This has no business being a general resolution, and would be an
>abuse of that process, IMHO[1].
[...]
> [1] If it's not, that's a bug in the constitution. Any quibblers who would
> like to play constitutional lawyer, please don't list-reply.

Why, now that you mention it--

(/me, screaming, is cast into the Gorge of Eternal Peril)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|If you make people think they're
Debian GNU/Linux   |thinking, they'll love you; but if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |you really make them think, they'll
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |hate you.



msg01829/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature