Re: Proposal - non-free software removal

2002-11-12 Thread Branden Robinson 
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:21:34PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines offered
> at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I hereby offer the following
> draft proposal as the beginning of a General Resolution process to decide
> this issue.

I second the proposal in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as posted
to the debian-vote list by John Goerzen.

> Sponsors should reply to this message.  According to the guidelines, all
> other discussion is to occur in debian-devel, and I will start a thread
> there with some prelminary analyses of this proposal.

-project is a better list, but if the secretary's guidelines say to use
-devel instead, I guess you're stuck.  Maybe the guidelines should be
updated?

I would like to a very minor amendment to this proposal.  I will not
withdraw my second if you elect not to accept it.

> D. That the maintainer of the Debian Policy Manual, or an appointee of
> the Debian Project Leader, be directed to update that manual
[...]
> E. That the maintainers of the Debian archives and website, or an
> appointee of the Debian Project Leader, be directed to implement the

s/appointee/delegate/

I think it is preferable that we employ in this resolution the term used
by the Constitution for such people.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|People are equally horrified at
Debian GNU/Linux   |hearing the Christian religion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |doubted, and at seeing it
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |practiced. -- Samuel Butler


pgpeqYLhpLhhY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: this is not a draft

2002-11-12 Thread Branden Robinson 
This is not a draft?

I second it!

:)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|To Republicans, limited government
Debian GNU/Linux   |means not assisting people they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |would sooner see shoveled into mass
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |graves.  -- Kenneth R. Kahn


pgpQrVaUkfi9x.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Müzik ve aradýklarýnýz kpic

2002-11-12 Thread Ian Arkesteijn 
Mp3sa yine bir ilki gerçekleþtiriyor: Klip arþivi!
Full albüm ve single parçalar mp3 halinde!
Arayýpta bulamadýðýnýz bütün parçalar için birde sitemize bakýn: 
http://www.mp3sa.com

Full Turkçe Album 
Full Yabancý Album 
A-Z Yerli Mp3 
A-Z Yabancý Mp3 
En Iyý 20 
Yerli Výdeo Klýp 
Yabancý Výdeo Klýp 
Yerli ve Yab. Arsýv

Hepsine birden ulaþabileceðiz tek bir adres var
http://www.mp3sa.com

Request for comments [voting amendment]

2002-11-12 Thread Raul Miller 
This is not a full draft.  In this post, I'm only including
text for replacing A.6 of the constitution.  I wanted to
also rewrite the changes to A.3, but I've got to run some
errands tonight and I'm not going to have time to write up
a full draft.

Please let me know of any flaws in the following partial draft:

  A.6 Vote Counting

1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
   specified by the voter.  Any options unranked by the voter are
   treated as being equal to any other unranked options and below
   all options ranked by the voter.

2. Options which do not defeat the default option are eliminated.

   Definition: Option A defeats option B if more voters prefer option
   A over option B than prefer option B over option A.

3. If an option has a quorum requirement, that option must defeat
   the default option by the number of votes specified in the quorum
   requirement or the option is eliminated.

4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
   defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
   quorum requirement or the option is eliminated.

5. If one remaining option defeats any other remaining options,
   that option wins.

6. If more than one option remains after the above steps, we use
   Cloneproof Schultz Sequential Dropping to eliminate any cyclic
   ambiguities and then pick the winner.  These represent a procedure
   and must be carried out in the specified order:

   i. All options not in the Schultz set are eliminated.

  Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no
  other option D such that C is in the beat path of D AND D is
  not in the beat path of C.

  Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if
  option G defeats option F or if there is some other option
  H where option H is in the beat path of G AND option F is in
  the beat path of H.

   ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
   the options which have the weakest defeat are eliminated.

   Definition: The strength of a defeat is represented by two
   numbers: the number of votes for the defeated option and the
   number of votes for the defeating option.

   The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
   the defeat.  Where two pairs of options have the same number
   of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
   favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.

   iii. If eliminating the weakest defeat would eliminate all options
in the Schultz set, a tie exists and the person with the
casting vote picks from among these options.

   iv. Otherwise, a new schultz set is found, with those weakest
   defeats eliminated,

   v. If this new schultz set contains only one option, that option
  wins.

   vi. Otherwise, these steps (i-vi) are repeated with this new
   schultz set.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

Re: Request for comments [voting amendment]

2002-11-12 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Please let me know of any flaws in the following partial draft:

These are mostly fairly minor.

>   A.6 Vote Counting
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter.  Any options unranked by the voter are
>treated as being equal to any other unranked options and below
>all options ranked by the voter.
> 2. Options which do not defeat the default option are eliminated.
>Definition: Option A defeats option B if more voters prefer option
>A over option B than prefer option B over option A.

Definition: A voter prefers option A over option B if he gives option
A a higher ranking than than option B, or gives option A a ranking and
does not give option B a ranking.

This might be being a bit pedantic, *shrug*.

> 3. If an option has a quorum requirement, that option must defeat
>the default option by the number of votes specified in the quorum
>requirement or the option is eliminated.

Does this mean:

3. If an option has a quorum requirement, Q, that option must be preferred over
the default option by at least Q people.

or

3. If an option, O, has a quorum requirement, Q, then option O must be
preferred over the default option by at least Q more people than prefer
the default option over option O.

> 5. If one remaining option defeats any other remaining options,
>that option wins.

s/any/all/

> 6. If more than one option remains after the above steps, we use
>Cloneproof Schultz Sequential Dropping to eliminate any cyclic
>ambiguities and then pick the winner.  These represent a procedure
>and must be carried out in the specified order:

%s/Schultz/Schwartz/g

>ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
>  the options which have the weakest defeat are eliminated.
>iii. If eliminating the weakest defeat would eliminate all options
>   in the Schultz set, a tie exists and the person with the
>   casting vote picks from among these options.

Hey, wait a minute. You eliminate *defeats*, not *options* here. That is, if
you've eliminated options E and F, and are left with A, B, C and D you might
have:

A > B > C > A  (> == beats)
A, B > D > C
Set = A,B,C,D

eliminating, say, B > C gives you:

A > B > D > C > A
A > D
Set = A,B,C,D

with no *options* eliminated if you then eliminate, say, B > D:

A > B
A > D > C > A
Set = A,C,D

but then A>B is out of the running for elimination since B isn't in
the Schwartz set. So if you then eliminate _everything_, you have:

A > B
A,B,C,D > E,F

Set = A,C,D (since nothing beats those options, and everything else is
 beaten)

So I don't think this rule is right: eliminating all defeats _can't_
reduce the Schwartz set. Even if you did drop A>B, then you'd end up
with a Schwartz set of A,B,C,D, not an empty set.

>ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
>  the options which have the weakest defeat are eliminated.
>iii. If eliminating the weakest defeat would eliminate all options
>   in the Schultz set, a tie exists and the person with the
>   casting vote picks from among these options.

ii. If there are defeats remaining between options in the Schwartz set,
the weakest defeats are eliminated.

iii. If there are no defeats amongst options in the Schwartz set,
 the outcome of the vote is a tie amongst the options in the Schwartz
 set, and the elector with a casting vote picks the winner from
 amongst the tied options.

>iv. Otherwise, a new schultz set is found, with those weakest
>defeats eliminated,

%s/schultz/Schwartz/

>v. If this new schultz set contains only one option, that option
>   wins.

This can happen with the initial Schwartz set too, so should really be
before (ii).

>vi. Otherwise, these steps (i-vi) are repeated with this new
>schultz set.

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.''


pgpT0xZWTcU2U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposal - non-free software removal

2002-11-12 Thread Branden Robinson 
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:21:34PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines offered
> at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I hereby offer the following
> draft proposal as the beginning of a General Resolution process to decide
> this issue.

I second the proposal in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as posted
to the debian-vote list by John Goerzen.

> Sponsors should reply to this message.  According to the guidelines, all
> other discussion is to occur in debian-devel, and I will start a thread
> there with some prelminary analyses of this proposal.

-project is a better list, but if the secretary's guidelines say to use
-devel instead, I guess you're stuck.  Maybe the guidelines should be
updated?

I would like to a very minor amendment to this proposal.  I will not
withdraw my second if you elect not to accept it.

> D. That the maintainer of the Debian Policy Manual, or an appointee of
> the Debian Project Leader, be directed to update that manual
[...]
> E. That the maintainers of the Debian archives and website, or an
> appointee of the Debian Project Leader, be directed to implement the

s/appointee/delegate/

I think it is preferable that we employ in this resolution the term used
by the Constitution for such people.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|People are equally horrified at
Debian GNU/Linux   |hearing the Christian religion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |doubted, and at seeing it
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |practiced. -- Samuel Butler



msg01891/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: this is not a draft

2002-11-12 Thread Branden Robinson 
This is not a draft?

I second it!

:)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|To Republicans, limited government
Debian GNU/Linux   |means not assisting people they
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |would sooner see shoveled into mass
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |graves.  -- Kenneth R. Kahn



msg01892/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Müzik ve aradýklarýnýz kpic

2002-11-12 Thread Ian Arkesteijn 
Mp3sa yine bir ilki gerçekleþtiriyor: Klip arþivi!
Full albüm ve single parçalar mp3 halinde!
Arayýpta bulamadýðýnýz bütün parçalar için birde sitemize bakýn: http://www.mp3sa.com

Full Turkçe Album 
Full Yabancý Album 
A-Z Yerli Mp3 
A-Z Yabancý Mp3 
En Iyý 20 
Yerli Výdeo Klýp 
Yabancý Výdeo Klýp 
Yerli ve Yab. Arsýv

Hepsine birden ulaþabileceðiz tek bir adres var
http://www.mp3sa.com



èPԔ ‘ ™¨¥¶‡^n&§¾‹^­ê®zËeŠËluæâjz+ƒ­…«.n7œ¶‡îžË›±Êâmäë¢æåx*'µ§-–+-™«-z¹b²Ûy¸šžŠà

Request for comments [voting amendment]

2002-11-12 Thread Raul Miller 
This is not a full draft.  In this post, I'm only including
text for replacing A.6 of the constitution.  I wanted to
also rewrite the changes to A.3, but I've got to run some
errands tonight and I'm not going to have time to write up
a full draft.

Please let me know of any flaws in the following partial draft:

  A.6 Vote Counting

1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
   specified by the voter.  Any options unranked by the voter are
   treated as being equal to any other unranked options and below
   all options ranked by the voter.

2. Options which do not defeat the default option are eliminated.

   Definition: Option A defeats option B if more voters prefer option
   A over option B than prefer option B over option A.

3. If an option has a quorum requirement, that option must defeat
   the default option by the number of votes specified in the quorum
   requirement or the option is eliminated.

4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
   defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
   quorum requirement or the option is eliminated.

5. If one remaining option defeats any other remaining options,
   that option wins.

6. If more than one option remains after the above steps, we use
   Cloneproof Schultz Sequential Dropping to eliminate any cyclic
   ambiguities and then pick the winner.  These represent a procedure
   and must be carried out in the specified order:

   i. All options not in the Schultz set are eliminated.

  Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no
  other option D such that C is in the beat path of D AND D is
  not in the beat path of C.

  Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if
  option G defeats option F or if there is some other option
  H where option H is in the beat path of G AND option F is in
  the beat path of H.

   ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
   the options which have the weakest defeat are eliminated.

   Definition: The strength of a defeat is represented by two
   numbers: the number of votes for the defeated option and the
   number of votes for the defeating option.

   The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
   the defeat.  Where two pairs of options have the same number
   of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
   favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.

   iii. If eliminating the weakest defeat would eliminate all options
in the Schultz set, a tie exists and the person with the
casting vote picks from among these options.

   iv. Otherwise, a new schultz set is found, with those weakest
   defeats eliminated,

   v. If this new schultz set contains only one option, that option
  wins.

   vi. Otherwise, these steps (i-vi) are repeated with this new
   schultz set.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul


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

Re: Request for comments [voting amendment]

2002-11-12 Thread Anthony Towns 
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Please let me know of any flaws in the following partial draft:

These are mostly fairly minor.

>   A.6 Vote Counting
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter.  Any options unranked by the voter are
>treated as being equal to any other unranked options and below
>all options ranked by the voter.
> 2. Options which do not defeat the default option are eliminated.
>Definition: Option A defeats option B if more voters prefer option
>A over option B than prefer option B over option A.

Definition: A voter prefers option A over option B if he gives option
A a higher ranking than than option B, or gives option A a ranking and
does not give option B a ranking.

This might be being a bit pedantic, *shrug*.

> 3. If an option has a quorum requirement, that option must defeat
>the default option by the number of votes specified in the quorum
>requirement or the option is eliminated.

Does this mean:

3. If an option has a quorum requirement, Q, that option must be preferred over
the default option by at least Q people.

or

3. If an option, O, has a quorum requirement, Q, then option O must be
preferred over the default option by at least Q more people than prefer
the default option over option O.

> 5. If one remaining option defeats any other remaining options,
>that option wins.

s/any/all/

> 6. If more than one option remains after the above steps, we use
>Cloneproof Schultz Sequential Dropping to eliminate any cyclic
>ambiguities and then pick the winner.  These represent a procedure
>and must be carried out in the specified order:

%s/Schultz/Schwartz/g

>ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
>  the options which have the weakest defeat are eliminated.
>iii. If eliminating the weakest defeat would eliminate all options
>   in the Schultz set, a tie exists and the person with the
>   casting vote picks from among these options.

Hey, wait a minute. You eliminate *defeats*, not *options* here. That is, if
you've eliminated options E and F, and are left with A, B, C and D you might
have:

A > B > C > A  (> == beats)
A, B > D > C
Set = A,B,C,D

eliminating, say, B > C gives you:

A > B > D > C > A
A > D
Set = A,B,C,D

with no *options* eliminated if you then eliminate, say, B > D:

A > B
A > D > C > A
Set = A,C,D

but then A>B is out of the running for elimination since B isn't in
the Schwartz set. So if you then eliminate _everything_, you have:

A > B
A,B,C,D > E,F

Set = A,C,D (since nothing beats those options, and everything else is
 beaten)

So I don't think this rule is right: eliminating all defeats _can't_
reduce the Schwartz set. Even if you did drop A>B, then you'd end up
with a Schwartz set of A,B,C,D, not an empty set.

>ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
>  the options which have the weakest defeat are eliminated.
>iii. If eliminating the weakest defeat would eliminate all options
>   in the Schultz set, a tie exists and the person with the
>   casting vote picks from among these options.

ii. If there are defeats remaining between options in the Schwartz set,
the weakest defeats are eliminated.

iii. If there are no defeats amongst options in the Schwartz set,
 the outcome of the vote is a tie amongst the options in the Schwartz
 set, and the elector with a casting vote picks the winner from
 amongst the tied options.

>iv. Otherwise, a new schultz set is found, with those weakest
>defeats eliminated,

%s/schultz/Schwartz/

>v. If this new schultz set contains only one option, that option
>   wins.

This can happen with the initial Schwartz set too, so should really be
before (ii).

>vi. Otherwise, these steps (i-vi) are repeated with this new
>schultz set.

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.''



msg01895/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature