Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread 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

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

2002-10-17 Thread Manoj Srivastava 
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns  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 option wins after

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread 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.


pgpoxDfNwGp0g.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sven Luther 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.

Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive modem connection.

Not everyone has access to high bandwith or other such solutions, so i
understand his concern, altough the resolution he propose is quite
drastic, doing at least something to stop spam and address harvesting
would be nice and stop people from complaining that half the mail they
get is by debian mailing lists, and that most of the other half was
harvested from debian mailing list archives.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Bastian Kleineidam 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.

Thats why I find Dan Bernsteins proposal[1] the most brilliant new idea
for email processing so far.

[1] http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html

Cheers,
Bastian


pgpkg3FuUR0Ux.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

2002-10-17 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
>  with no quorum required to propose the resolution.  

We accept them with the same requirements as a resolution: a proposer
and some seconders -- quorums don't enter into it at all, so it shouldn't
get mentioned here, just later when we're trying to work out which option
wins.

>  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

The intention was to have two independent options:

1) Kill just non-free, but keep maintaining and supporting contrib;
   versus kill both non-free and contrib

2) Kill them by removing them from Debian entirely at the
   conclusion of the vote; versus kill them by having stricter
   policies about maintainership, or other indirect methods
   (eg, making non-free packages need a couple of "sponsors"
   as well as an active maintainer)

>   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.

Which would give you at least five options:

0) Do nothing
1) Original proposal (kill just non-free, immediately)
2) Alternative 1 (kill non-free and contrib, immediately)
3) Alternative 2 (phase out just non-free, keep contrib)
4) Alternative 1+2 (phase out non-free and contrib)

The question being whether there's any point "implying" the last option
from the existance, and independence, of the two alternatives that've
been proposed and seconded. AIUI the current constitution and the current
draft *would* create that fifth option out of thin air.

>  >> --
>  >> A.6. Concorde Vote Counting

Maybe "Condorcet Vote Counting" with "...using the Cloneproof Schwartz
Sequential Dropping Method (SSD)" somewhere underneath?

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.''


pgp9xOXTCqryT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sven Luther 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:59:32AM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> > expensive modem connection.
> 
> Thats why I find Dan Bernsteins proposal[1] the most brilliant new idea
> for email processing so far.
> 
> [1] http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html

It is nice, but many time will pass before such a thing becomes widely
accepted. In the meantime user which expensive connection have to cope
with spam.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Joerg Jaspert 
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.

Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter).

-- 
begin  OjE-ist-scheisse.txt
bye, Joerg Encrypted Mail preferred!
Registered Linux User #97793 @ http://counter.li.org
end


pgpBBbirPVFSH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.

now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin your 
daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Jérôme Marant 
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do
> it
> > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow
> and
> > expensive modem connection.
> 
> now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
> your 
> daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.

It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as
being spam and send them anyway, what do you get?

--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://marant.org

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

2002-10-17 Thread Raul Miller 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?

http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/condor2.html says:

  "1. An "unbeaten set" is a set of candidates none of whom is beaten by
   anyone outside that set. 2. An innermost unbeaten set is an unbeaten
   set that doesn't contain a smaller unbeaten set. 3. The "Schwartz set"
   is the set of candidates who are in innermost unbeaten sets."

I can't find any meaningful references to "schulze set" using google,
but if I recall correctly, "schulze set" has a different definition.

Remember that "innermost unbeaten set" is an ambiguous term if there
are any pairwise ties in an innermost unbeaten set.

> 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).

In my original draft, I used the term "Candidate" in place of "Schwartz
set" (and the grammar was a bit different).  Personally, I'm not
particularly attached to the terminology, as long as it's unambiguous
and understandable.

> 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".

"Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the proposed
mechanism and the existing mechanism.  I'd like to avoid that term
if possible.

> > 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?

The quorum mechanism is structurally different from the supermajority
requirement.

This does raise the question: should the supermajority ratio be applied
to quorum requirements?  If you're happy applying the ratio in that
fashion, it would seem reasonable to combine these into one.  However,
that's a different proposal.

> > 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:

To deal with the case of no votes and on a ballot with no quorum
requirement.

> # 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 defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
> #   3a. Eliminate the weakest defeat/s.
> #   3b. Repeat, beginning at 1.
> 
> It might make sense to say:
> 
>   2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
>   2b. If the default option is in the Schwartz set, it wins.
>   2c. Otherwise, the voter with a casting vote may choose a
>   winner from the remaining options, or may choose to let the
>   vote be retaken.

In other words, don't bother dropping weakest defeats?

[1] This is a different proposal.
[2] This makes the casting vote much more powerful than the the current
draft.  [In some cases, the casting vote becomes more powerful than a
hundred regular votes.]
[3] If you want to discuss this further I'd like to lay out a theoretical
basis for the discussion -- do you care enough to make that worthwhile?

I think I'm ok with your other rephrasings, but I think it's important
to draw a line between "expressing the concept better" and "expressing
a different concept".

> that is, only do special cases when you really don't have a choice.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> "tied with each other" doesn't seem particularly well defined, IMO.
> Every single pairwise comparison has to be exactly balanced, or already
> discarded.

I'm not at all clear what you're objecting to, here.  Is there something
ambiguous about that phrasing?

> >10. Otherwise, there are multiple options in the schultz set and
> >th

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >
> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
> > your
> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
>
> It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
> yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as
> being spam and send them anyway, what do you get?

so the software needs more tweaking, doesn't all software?  I set my mailer to 
toss anything with a 4 rating into a special bin.  Yeah i still had to 
download it but I did not have to see it until I looked through my 
spam-assassin bin.

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Jérôme Marant 
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
>> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
>> expensive modem connection.
>
> Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
> deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter).

If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK.

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org

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

2002-10-17 Thread Markus Schulze 
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,

I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.

***

Axiomatic Definition:

   Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number of voters who strictly prefer
   candidate Ci to candidate Cj. A "beat path from candidate A to
   candidate B" is an ordered set of candidates C1,...,Cn such that
   candidate A is identical to candidate C1, such that candidate B
   is identical to candidate Cn, and such that
   d(Ci,C(i+1)) - d(C(i+1),Ci) >= 0 for all i = 1,...,(n-1).

   S1(C1,...,Cn) : = min{ d(Ci,C(i+1))| i = 1,...,(n-1)}.
   S2(C1,...,Cn) : = min{ d(Ci,C(i+1)) - d(C(i+1),Ci) | i = 1,...,(n-1)}.

   P1(A,B) : = max { S1(C1,...,Cn) | C1,...,Cn is a beat path from A to B}.
   P2(A,B) : = max { S2(C1,...,Cn) | C1,...,Cn is a beat path from A to B;
 S1(C1,...,Cn) = P1(A,B)}.

   When there is no beat path from candidate A to candidate B, then
   P1(A,B) := -1. [P2(A,B) can be defined arbitrarily when there is
   no beat path from candidate A to candidate B.]

   When C1,...,Cn is a beat path, then S1(C1,...,Cn) is called the
   "absolute strength of the beat path C1,...,Cn" and S2(C1,...,Cn)
   is called the "margin of the beat path C1,...,Cn".

   A "Schulze winner" is a candidate A such that
   (P1(A,B) > P1(B,A)) or ((P1(A,B) = P1(B,A)) and (P2(A,B) >= P2(B,A)))
   for every other candidate B.

   The "Schulze set" is the set of all Schulze winners. [It can be proven
   that there is always at least one Schulze winner.] If there is more
   than one Schulze winner, the elector with the casting vote picks the
   winner from the Schulze set.

***

Algorithmic Definition with the Floyd Algorithm:

   Input: d(i,j) is the number of voters who strictly
   prefer candidate i to candidate j

   for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
   for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
   if (i <> j) then
  {
   if (d(i,j) >= d(j,i)) then
   P1(i,j) : = d(i,j);
   else
   P1(i,j) : = -1;

   P2(i,j) : = d(i,j) - d(j,i);
  }

   for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
   for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
   if (i <> j) then
   for (k : = 1; k <= NumberOfCandidates; k++)
   if ((i <> k) and (j <> k)) then
  {
   s : = min(P1(j,i),P1(i,k));
   t : = min(P2(j,i),P2(i,k));
   
   if ((P1(j,k) < s) or
  ((P1(j,k) = s) and (P2(j,k) < t))) then
  {
   P1(j,k) : = s;
   P2(j,k) : = t;
  }
  }

   for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
  {
   winner(i) : = true;
   for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
   if (i <> j) then
   if ((P1(i,j) < P1(j,i)) or
  ((P1(i,j) = P1(j,i)) and (P2(i,j) < P2(j,i then
   winner(i) : = false;
  }

   If there is more than one candidate with "winner(i) = true",
   the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from all
   the candidates with "winner(i) = true".

Markus Schulze

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Jérôme Marant 
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> >
>> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
>> > your
>> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
>>
>> It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
>> yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as
>> being spam and send them anyway, what do you get?
>
> so the software needs more tweaking, doesn't all software?  I set my mailer 
> to 
> toss anything with a 4 rating into a special bin.  Yeah i still had to 
> download it but I did not have to see it until I looked through my 
> spam-assassin bin.

Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
issue.

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>
> Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
> who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
> issue.

agreed.  However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the 
amount of garbage delivered can be reduced significantly.  That said the 
debian lists tend to be high traffic I seriously doubt the 5 - 12 more mails 
a day we receive that are spam really impact that much.  On a slow day that 
equates to something like 10%.

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Steve Langasek 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:

> > Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
> > who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
> > issue.

> agreed.  However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the 
> amount of garbage delivered can be reduced significantly.  That said the 
> debian lists tend to be high traffic I seriously doubt the 5 - 12 more mails 
> a day we receive that are spam really impact that much.  On a slow day that 
> equates to something like 10%.

Spam delivered via the Debian mailing lists is a separate issue from spam
delivered using addresses *gleaned* from Debian mailing lists.  Isn't
this thread about the latter?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpleqdP0rzs8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> >> expensive modem connection.
> >
> > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
> > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter).
>
> If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK.

What they do is ask the pop server for just the headers of the email via 
pop3's top command.  Then it tries to remove the spam.  In the end the data 
still gets transferred it just never makes it onto a harddrive.

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

2002-10-17 Thread Sam Hartman 
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Raul> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns

Raul> "Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the
Raul> proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism.  I'd like to
Raul> avoid that term if possible.
Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
term-of-art.  Being clear is important, but you should also be clear
to people who understand the technical properties of the discussion.
Iventing new terms or avoiding the use of well-established terms that
say what you mean tends to confuse technically minded people and leads
to incorrect text if you happen to get the definitions for your new
terms wrong.

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

2002-10-17 Thread Raul Miller 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
> term-of-art.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  What is your basis for this
statement?

Here's my understanding:

The only place the constitution uses the word "dominates" is in the
appendix (A.6).  The proposed constitutional ammendment replaces that
part of the appendix.

One of the reasons for proposing a new voting system is the ambiguity
of the term "dominates" as defined by the constitution (A.6.2).

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sven Luther 

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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.

Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
expensive modem connection.

Not everyone has access to high bandwith or other such solutions, so i
understand his concern, altough the resolution he propose is quite
drastic, doing at least something to stop spam and address harvesting
would be nice and stop people from complaining that half the mail they
get is by debian mailing lists, and that most of the other half was
harvested from debian mailing list archives.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Bastian Kleineidam 

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.

Thats why I find Dan Bernsteins proposal[1] the most brilliant new idea
for email processing so far.

[1] http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html

Cheers,
Bastian



msg01831/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sven Luther 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:59:32AM +0200, Bastian Kleineidam wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:33:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> > expensive modem connection.
> 
> Thats why I find Dan Bernsteins proposal[1] the most brilliant new idea
> for email processing so far.
> 
> [1] http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html

It is nice, but many time will pass before such a thing becomes widely
accepted. In the meantime user which expensive connection have to cope
with spam.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


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

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

2002-10-17 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
>  with no quorum required to propose the resolution.  

We accept them with the same requirements as a resolution: a proposer
and some seconders -- quorums don't enter into it at all, so it shouldn't
get mentioned here, just later when we're trying to work out which option
wins.

>  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

The intention was to have two independent options:

1) Kill just non-free, but keep maintaining and supporting contrib;
   versus kill both non-free and contrib

2) Kill them by removing them from Debian entirely at the
   conclusion of the vote; versus kill them by having stricter
   policies about maintainership, or other indirect methods
   (eg, making non-free packages need a couple of "sponsors"
   as well as an active maintainer)

>   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.

Which would give you at least five options:

0) Do nothing
1) Original proposal (kill just non-free, immediately)
2) Alternative 1 (kill non-free and contrib, immediately)
3) Alternative 2 (phase out just non-free, keep contrib)
4) Alternative 1+2 (phase out non-free and contrib)

The question being whether there's any point "implying" the last option
from the existance, and independence, of the two alternatives that've
been proposed and seconded. AIUI the current constitution and the current
draft *would* create that fifth option out of thin air.

>  >> --
>  >> A.6. Concorde Vote Counting

Maybe "Condorcet Vote Counting" with "...using the Cloneproof Schwartz
Sequential Dropping Method (SSD)" somewhere underneath?

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.''



msg01860/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.

now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin your 
daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.


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

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

2002-10-17 Thread Raul Miller 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?

http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/condor2.html says:

  "1. An "unbeaten set" is a set of candidates none of whom is beaten by
   anyone outside that set. 2. An innermost unbeaten set is an unbeaten
   set that doesn't contain a smaller unbeaten set. 3. The "Schwartz set"
   is the set of candidates who are in innermost unbeaten sets."

I can't find any meaningful references to "schulze set" using google,
but if I recall correctly, "schulze set" has a different definition.

Remember that "innermost unbeaten set" is an ambiguous term if there
are any pairwise ties in an innermost unbeaten set.

> 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).

In my original draft, I used the term "Candidate" in place of "Schwartz
set" (and the grammar was a bit different).  Personally, I'm not
particularly attached to the terminology, as long as it's unambiguous
and understandable.

> 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".

"Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the proposed
mechanism and the existing mechanism.  I'd like to avoid that term
if possible.

> > 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?

The quorum mechanism is structurally different from the supermajority
requirement.

This does raise the question: should the supermajority ratio be applied
to quorum requirements?  If you're happy applying the ratio in that
fashion, it would seem reasonable to combine these into one.  However,
that's a different proposal.

> > 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:

To deal with the case of no votes and on a ballot with no quorum
requirement.

> # 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 defeats amongst the Schwartz set:
> #   3a. Eliminate the weakest defeat/s.
> #   3b. Repeat, beginning at 1.
> 
> It might make sense to say:
> 
>   2a. If there is only one member in the Schwartz set, it wins.
>   2b. If the default option is in the Schwartz set, it wins.
>   2c. Otherwise, the voter with a casting vote may choose a
>   winner from the remaining options, or may choose to let the
>   vote be retaken.

In other words, don't bother dropping weakest defeats?

[1] This is a different proposal.
[2] This makes the casting vote much more powerful than the the current
draft.  [In some cases, the casting vote becomes more powerful than a
hundred regular votes.]
[3] If you want to discuss this further I'd like to lay out a theoretical
basis for the discussion -- do you care enough to make that worthwhile?

I think I'm ok with your other rephrasings, but I think it's important
to draw a line between "expressing the concept better" and "expressing
a different concept".

> that is, only do special cases when you really don't have a choice.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> "tied with each other" doesn't seem particularly well defined, IMO.
> Every single pairwise comparison has to be exactly balanced, or already
> discarded.

I'm not at all clear what you're objecting to, here.  Is there something
ambiguous about that phrasing?

> >10. Otherwise, there are multiple options in the schultz set and
> >th

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Jérôme Marant 
En réponse à Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Thursday 17 October 2002 02:33, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:06:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do
> it
> > after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow
> and
> > expensive modem connection.
> 
> now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
> your 
> daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.

It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as
being spam and send them anyway, what do you get?

--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://marant.org


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

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >
> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
> > your
> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
>
> It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
> yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as
> being spam and send them anyway, what do you get?

so the software needs more tweaking, doesn't all software?  I set my mailer to 
toss anything with a 4 rating into a special bin.  Yeah i still had to 
download it but I did not have to see it until I looked through my 
spam-assassin bin.


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

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Joerg Jaspert 
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> expensive modem connection.

Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter).

-- 
begin  OjE-ist-scheisse.txt
bye, Joerg Encrypted Mail preferred!
Registered Linux User #97793 @ http://counter.li.org
end



msg01865/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Jérôme Marant 
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
>> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
>> expensive modem connection.
>
> Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
> deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter).

If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK.

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org


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

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

2002-10-17 Thread Markus Schulze 
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,

I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.

***

Axiomatic Definition:

   Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number of voters who strictly prefer
   candidate Ci to candidate Cj. A "beat path from candidate A to
   candidate B" is an ordered set of candidates C1,...,Cn such that
   candidate A is identical to candidate C1, such that candidate B
   is identical to candidate Cn, and such that
   d(Ci,C(i+1)) - d(C(i+1),Ci) >= 0 for all i = 1,...,(n-1).

   S1(C1,...,Cn) : = min{ d(Ci,C(i+1))| i = 1,...,(n-1)}.
   S2(C1,...,Cn) : = min{ d(Ci,C(i+1)) - d(C(i+1),Ci) | i = 1,...,(n-1)}.

   P1(A,B) : = max { S1(C1,...,Cn) | C1,...,Cn is a beat path from A to B}.
   P2(A,B) : = max { S2(C1,...,Cn) | C1,...,Cn is a beat path from A to B;
 S1(C1,...,Cn) = P1(A,B)}.

   When there is no beat path from candidate A to candidate B, then
   P1(A,B) := -1. [P2(A,B) can be defined arbitrarily when there is
   no beat path from candidate A to candidate B.]

   When C1,...,Cn is a beat path, then S1(C1,...,Cn) is called the
   "absolute strength of the beat path C1,...,Cn" and S2(C1,...,Cn)
   is called the "margin of the beat path C1,...,Cn".

   A "Schulze winner" is a candidate A such that
   (P1(A,B) > P1(B,A)) or ((P1(A,B) = P1(B,A)) and (P2(A,B) >= P2(B,A)))
   for every other candidate B.

   The "Schulze set" is the set of all Schulze winners. [It can be proven
   that there is always at least one Schulze winner.] If there is more
   than one Schulze winner, the elector with the casting vote picks the
   winner from the Schulze set.

***

Algorithmic Definition with the Floyd Algorithm:

   Input: d(i,j) is the number of voters who strictly
   prefer candidate i to candidate j

   for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
   for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
   if (i <> j) then
  {
   if (d(i,j) >= d(j,i)) then
   P1(i,j) : = d(i,j);
   else
   P1(i,j) : = -1;

   P2(i,j) : = d(i,j) - d(j,i);
  }

   for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
   for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
   if (i <> j) then
   for (k : = 1; k <= NumberOfCandidates; k++)
   if ((i <> k) and (j <> k)) then
  {
   s : = min(P1(j,i),P1(i,k));
   t : = min(P2(j,i),P2(i,k));
   
   if ((P1(j,k) < s) or
  ((P1(j,k) = s) and (P2(j,k) < t))) then
  {
   P1(j,k) : = s;
   P2(j,k) : = t;
  }
  }

   for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
  {
   winner(i) : = true;
   for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
   if (i <> j) then
   if ((P1(i,j) < P1(j,i)) or
  ((P1(i,j) = P1(j,i)) and (P2(i,j) < P2(j,i then
   winner(i) : = false;
  }

   If there is more than one candidate with "winner(i) = true",
   the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from all
   the candidates with "winner(i) = true".

Markus Schulze


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

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Jérôme Marant 
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thursday 17 October 2002 09:00, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> >
>> > now that all of the debian-* lists are being run through spamassassin
>> > your
>> > daily dose of canned meat should drop nicely.
>>
>> It does not work. What about those italian spams we received
>> yesterday and today? If the debian server only mark the mails as
>> being spam and send them anyway, what do you get?
>
> so the software needs more tweaking, doesn't all software?  I set my mailer to 
> toss anything with a 4 rating into a special bin.  Yeah i still had to 
> download it but I did not have to see it until I looked through my 
> spam-assassin bin.

Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
issue.

-- 
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.

2002-10-17 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>
> Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
> who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
> issue.

agreed.  However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the 
amount of garbage delivered can be reduced significantly.  That said the 
debian lists tend to be high traffic I seriously doubt the 5 - 12 more mails 
a day we receive that are spam really impact that much.  On a slow day that 
equates to something like 10%.


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

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Steve Langasek 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:56PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:18, Jérôme Marant wrote:

> > Sven mentioned that people with a poor network connection
> > who have to download all the spam anyway. That is the real
> > issue.

> agreed.  However I believe that by working on the spamassassin config the 
> amount of garbage delivered can be reduced significantly.  That said the 
> debian lists tend to be high traffic I seriously doubt the 5 - 12 more mails 
> a day we receive that are spam really impact that much.  On a slow day that 
> equates to something like 10%.

Spam delivered via the Debian mailing lists is a separate issue from spam
delivered using addresses *gleaned* from Debian mailing lists.  Isn't
this thread about the latter?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer



msg01870/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

2002-10-17 Thread Sam Hartman 
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Raul> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns

Raul> "Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the
Raul> proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism.  I'd like to
Raul> avoid that term if possible.
Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
term-of-art.  Being clear is important, but you should also be clear
to people who understand the technical properties of the discussion.
Iventing new terms or avoiding the use of well-established terms that
say what you mean tends to confuse technically minded people and leads
to incorrect text if you happen to get the definitions for your new
terms wrong.


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

Re: General Resolution draft against spam.

2002-10-17 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry 
On Thursday 17 October 2002 12:19, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Well, manoj, the only problem is that when you filter spam, you do it
> >> after having paid for the download of the spam over a possibly slow and
> >> expensive modem connection.
> >
> > Most of the times you use pop3 then. For that there are many tools
> > deleting spam before you download it (like mailfilter).
>
> If such a tool is really efficent, then I'm OK.

What they do is ask the pop server for just the headers of the email via 
pop3's top command.  Then it tries to remove the spam.  In the end the data 
still gets transferred it just never makes it onto a harddrive.


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

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

2002-10-17 Thread Raul Miller 
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
> term-of-art.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  What is your basis for this
statement?

Here's my understanding:

The only place the constitution uses the word "dominates" is in the
appendix (A.6).  The proposed constitutional ammendment replaces that
part of the appendix.

One of the reasons for proposing a new voting system is the ambiguity
of the term "dominates" as defined by the constitution (A.6.2).

Thanks,

-- 
Raul


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