Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
>
I like. One minor nit:
> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
> all options need be ranked.
Giving the same rank to more than one option is permitted.
> "RATIONALE": Voter
For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
--
A.6 Vote Counting
1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
all options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered
pref
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> You (and Matthias) seem to be assuming that if quorum isn't reached,
> then the ballot measures should be shot down. I and John are saying
> that if quorum isn't reached, then the trigger hasn't been pulled yet
> (to stretch a metaphor).
>
> You are also applying quorum req
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:27:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met,
> > > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF
> > > and thus
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
> required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly
> simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any other argument
> for it.
>
I don't think that's a good idea -- the concept of a
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > *shrug* I don't care about quorums :)
> > We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met
> > if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quoru
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> But, I still insist that it is still not ok if the system allows an
> insincere vote to hand victory to a non-default option.
Uh, if you're just going to insist on it no matter what, there's
not really much point discussing it with
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:27:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met,
> > > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF
> > > and thus
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > *shrug* I don't care about quorums :)
> > We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met
> > if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quoru
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> But, I still insist that it is still not ok if the system allows an
> insincere vote to hand victory to a non-default option.
Uh, if you're just going to insist on it no matter what, there's
not really much point discussing it with
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>> The only real issue is the one where your sincere vote:
>> A S D(normal option, supermajority option, default option)
>> will cause S to win (thanks to you letting it pass its supermajority), but
>> your insincere vote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:53:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The default option isn't
> > something you can be particularly "sincere" about
>
> Your point here being that even if the default wins, the vote will
> be held again
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have
> > lost.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:00:17AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger,
> isn't it?
No, but
Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
[1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly
simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any other argument
for it.
[2] Discard the
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> *shrug* I don't care about quorums :)
>
> We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met
> if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quorum is not met,
> the default option wins."
Actually I would prefer
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have
> lost.
So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger,
isn't it?
Jochen
--
Omm
> > 2. We drop the weakest defeats from the Schwartz set until there
> >are no more defeats in the Schwartz set:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:41:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> IMO this "Schwarz set" jargon just comes out of the blue here and is
> likely going to be sort of jarring
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:53:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> What we'd like to do is something similar:
>
> * allow a pre-determined minority to block a vote.
>
> * allow them to express sincere preferences between options,
> without being forced to invoke their minority b
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Likewise, we've never had an official vote where the winning option would
> > have failed to satisfy a 3:1 supermajority requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:23:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Sure we have.
>
> http://www.d
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> As before, if there are any flaws in my thinking or in my presentation,
[...]
> __
>
> A.6 Vote Counting
>
> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being vote
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met,
> > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF
> > and thus A has supermajority (at any ratio) over B and F.
>
> That would be bad.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> You're saying, in essence, that since we've never had a problem getting
> enough people involved in the vote that we shouldn't have any kind
> of minimal requirements for getting people involved. Yes, you could
> describe quorum in thi
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:58:27PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> In the case you mentioned, sentiment is for the proposal, so the option
> should win -- assuming the vote is binding. If there are enough total
> ballots to meet quorum, the vote is binding. If there aren't enough
> total ballots t
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> False (in general).
[...]
> That depends on how you arrange the voting process.
That was my point.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | Ignorantia judicis est calamitas
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:42:33PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> In parliamentary terms, "conducting business" means "making decisions by
> vote". Normally, a measure can't be defeated by lack of quorum. If
> there is a lack of quorum, no vote can be held -- or if a vote is held
> before quorum
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes
against the option.
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q vote
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
>> The only real issue is the one where your sincere vote:
>> A S D(normal option, supermajority option, default option)
>> will cause S to win (thanks to you letting it pass its supermajority), but
>> your insincere vote:
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> > 70 people are for the proposal, 10 against, the remaining 20 refuse to
> > vote => the proposal fails.
>
> What do you mean "the proposal fails"? Is it dead, and can't be
> resurrected? Is it up for "further discusion", with a future revote? I
> feel that a lack of quor
Hi,
After thinking about the whole supermajority stuff a bit, I think we need
to get back to what exactly we want.
I'd say that a single vote is meant to decide between a mutually exclusive
set of options. This means, to me, that each option's supermajority or
quorum requirements should be consid
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
John H. Robinson, IV:
i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to
conduct business.
[Matthias's comments rearranged...]
Sorry, but I don't like that. With a quorum, the people against a proposal
need to actively solicit support for t
Raul Miller wrote:
> >>Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
> >>and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes
> >>against the option.
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> >i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes causes
> >
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:53:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The default option isn't
> > something you can be particularly "sincere" about
>
> Your point here being that even if the default wins, the vote will
> be held again
Hi,
John H. Robinson, IV:
> i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to
> conduct business.
>
OK. Let's say we have a quorum of 90 and a supermajority of 2:1.
70 people are for the proposal, 30 against => the proposal wins.
70 people are for the proposal, 10 against, t
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have
> > lost.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:00:17AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger,
> isn't it?
No, but
Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
[1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly
simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any other argument
for it.
[2] Discard the
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> i may have misused/overloaded the term ballot, and used it when i should
> have used measure. it is due to a lack of clear udnerstanding the
> difference.
Just in case this is important:
A ballot is something which lists thin
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> *shrug* I don't care about quorums :)
>
> We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met
> if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quorum is not met,
> the default option wins."
Actually I would prefer
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have
> lost.
So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger,
isn't it?
Jochen
--
Omm
> > 2. We drop the weakest defeats from the Schwartz set until there
> >are no more defeats in the Schwartz set:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:41:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> IMO this "Schwarz set" jargon just comes out of the blue here and is
> likely going to be sort of jarring
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:53:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> What we'd like to do is something similar:
>
> * allow a pre-determined minority to block a vote.
>
> * allow them to express sincere preferences between options,
> without being forced to invoke their minority b
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Likewise, we've never had an official vote where the winning option would
> > have failed to satisfy a 3:1 supermajority requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:23:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Sure we have.
>
> http://www.d
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying
is bad. I don't think you understood my objection.
Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
and therefore cause the option to win. This disc
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> you are assuming that only proponents of a ballot will bother to vote.
I'm not assuming that only proponents of an option on a ballot will
bother to vote. I'm not sure what "proponents of a ballot" means,
so I can't say wheth
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> As before, if there are any flaws in my thinking or in my presentation,
[...]
> __
>
> A.6 Vote Counting
>
> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being vote
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met,
> > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF
> > and thus A has supermajority (at any ratio) over B and F.
>
> That would be bad.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:06:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm going to ignore the fact you meant wrt quorums not supermajorities.
*blush* Thanks.
>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> You're saying, in essence, that since we've never had a problem getting
> enough people involved in the vote that we shouldn't have any kind
> of minimal requirements for getting people involved. Yes, you could
> describe quorum in thi
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:58:27PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> In the case you mentioned, sentiment is for the proposal, so the option
> should win -- assuming the vote is binding. If there are enough total
> ballots to meet quorum, the vote is binding. If there aren't enough
> total ballots t
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> John H. Robinson, IV:
> > also, with the Condorcet + SSD election method, is the supermajority
> > requirements really required? it does allow a vocal minority to block an
> > action.
>
> No it doesn't. If a majority rank option A first, that option wins -- end
>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> False (in general).
[...]
> That depends on how you arrange the voting process.
That was my point.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | Ignorantia judicis est calamitas
[EMAIL PROTECT
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying
> is bad. I don't think you understood my objection.
>
> Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
> and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere vot
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:42:33PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> In parliamentary terms, "conducting business" means "making decisions by
> vote". Normally, a measure can't be defeated by lack of quorum. If
> there is a lack of quorum, no vote can be held -- or if a vote is held
> before quorum
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes
against the option.
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> > 70 people are for the proposal, 10 against, the remaining 20 refuse to
> > vote => the proposal fails.
>
> What do you mean "the proposal fails"? Is it dead, and can't be
> resurrected? Is it up for "further discusion", with a future revote? I
> feel that a lack of quor
Hi,
After thinking about the whole supermajority stuff a bit, I think we need
to get back to what exactly we want.
I'd say that a single vote is meant to decide between a mutually exclusive
set of options. This means, to me, that each option's supermajority or
quorum requirements should be consid
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
John H. Robinson, IV:
i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to
conduct business.
[Matthias's comments rearranged...]
Sorry, but I don't like that. With a quorum, the people against a proposal
need to actively solicit support for the
Raul Miller wrote:
> >That would be bad.
> >
> >If you do it this way, there are circumstances where a vote against
> >an option may cause that option to win (because without that vote the
> >option wouldn't have met quorum).
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 02:21:05PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> I think y
Raul Miller wrote:
> >>Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
> >>and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes
> >>against the option.
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> >i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes causes
> >
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close
to failing to meet our quorum requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing:
we want to know th
Hi,
John H. Robinson, IV:
> i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to
> conduct business.
>
OK. Let's say we have a quorum of 90 and a supermajority of 2:1.
70 people are for the proposal, 30 against => the proposal wins.
70 people are for the proposal, 10 against, t
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> i may have misused/overloaded the term ballot, and used it when i should
> have used measure. it is due to a lack of clear udnerstanding the
> difference.
Just in case this is important:
A ballot is something which lists thin
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> *shrug* I don't care about quorums :)
>
> We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met
> if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quorum is not met,
> the default option wins."
Let's say quorum is 45.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
I'm going to ignore the fact you meant wrt quorums not supermajorities.
Consider 100 voters, a constitutional amendment, A, and a set of
conscientious objecto
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying
is bad. I don't think you understood my objection.
Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
and therefore cause the option to win. This disco
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> you are assuming that only proponents of a ballot will bother to vote.
I'm not assuming that only proponents of an option on a ballot will
bother to vote. I'm not sure what "proponents of a ballot" means,
so I can't say wheth
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:06:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm going to ignore the fact you meant wrt quorums not supermajorities.
*blush* Thanks.
>
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> John H. Robinson, IV:
> > also, with the Condorcet + SSD election method, is the supermajority
> > requirements really required? it does allow a vocal minority to block an
> > action.
>
> No it doesn't. If a majority rank option A first, that option wins -- end
>
Hi,
John H. Robinson, IV:
> also, with the Condorcet + SSD election method, is the supermajority
> requirements really required? it does allow a vocal minority to block an
> action.
No it doesn't. If a majority rank option A first, that option wins -- end
of vote. (Unless you use the Borda method
Raul Miller wrote:
> > On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close
> > to failing to meet our quorum requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing:
>
> we want to know that a signific
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying
> is bad. I don't think you understood my objection.
>
> Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
> and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere vot
The notation I used in my response to Clinton was wrong for the draft
I proposed yesterday and the draft I proposed today. It reflects a
[more complex] draft I'd been thinking about, but not the draft I wrote.
I apologize for that. Here's a better response to Clinton.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:14:41PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its
> > goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of
> > either convincing all bu
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close
> to failing to meet our quorum requirement.
let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing:
we want to know that a significant portion of the electorate care enough
to represent themselves.
so would
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> > > options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> > > options over another option?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:39:21PM +1000, Anthon
Raul Miller wrote:
> >That would be bad.
> >
> >If you do it this way, there are circumstances where a vote against
> >an option may cause that option to win (because without that vote the
> >option wouldn't have met quorum).
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 02:21:05PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> I think y
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> options over another option?
>
False (in general).
> Is my understanding correct?
>
That depends on how you arrange the voting pro
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close
to failing to meet our quorum requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing:
we want to know tha
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:34:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Still, I question the utility of a quorum requriment at all in a project
> of Debian's size. There have been irregularities in our application of
> the Constitution in the past (e.g., with Project Leaders' terms of
> office), but
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> *shrug* I don't care about quorums :)
>
> We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met
> if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quorum is not met,
> the default option wins."
Let's say quorum is 45.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
I'm going to ignore the fact you meant wrt quorums not supermajorities.
Consider 100 voters, a constitutional amendment, A, and a set of
conscientious objecto
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its
> goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of
> either convincing all but a fringe minority that your goals are better,
> or of start
As before, if there are any flaws in my thinking or in my presentation,
if there's anything that doesn't make sense, please tell me about it.
It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft
with the strategies possible if we moved the quorum requirement to before
step 2 (some
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:35:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ugh. I'd suggest reusing the same symbols and considering them to be "reset"
> each time you say "An option, ". Something like:
>
> W, X, Y, Z -- any option
> S -- any option with a supermajority requirement
>
Hi,
John H. Robinson, IV:
> also, with the Condorcet + SSD election method, is the supermajority
> requirements really required? it does allow a vocal minority to block an
> action.
No it doesn't. If a majority rank option A first, that option wins -- end
of vote. (Unless you use the Borda method
Raul Miller wrote:
> > On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close
> > to failing to meet our quorum requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing:
>
> we want to know that a signific
Hello Raul,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 02:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> As always, if there are any flaws in my thinking or in my presentation,
> please tell me. This is a fairly complete rewrite so please scrutinize
> it suspiciously.
>
> A.6 Vote Counting [...]
I like this draft. I think
The notation I used in my response to Clinton was wrong for the draft
I proposed yesterday and the draft I proposed today. It reflects a
[more complex] draft I'd been thinking about, but not the draft I wrote.
I apologize for that. Here's a better response to Clinton.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:11:43AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> I would like to know the result of this ballot.
>
> ACB
> ACB
> CBA
> CBA
> CBA
>
> Where A is default and C requires a supermajority (as far as I can tell
> its A, even though B, not needing a supermajority, beat it pairwise).
Wha
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:14:41PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its
> > goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of
> > either convincing all bu
Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close
> to failing to meet our quorum requirement.
let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing:
we want to know that a significant portion of the electorate care enough
to represent themselves.
so would
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> > > options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> > > options over another option?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:39:21PM +1000, Anthon
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> options over another option?
>
False (in general).
> Is my understanding correct?
>
That depends on how you arrange the voting pro
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:34:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Still, I question the utility of a quorum requriment at all in a project
> of Debian's size. There have been irregularities in our application of
> the Constitution in the past (e.g., with Project Leaders' terms of
> office), but
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its
> goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of
> either convincing all but a fringe minority that your goals are better,
> or of start
As before, if there are any flaws in my thinking or in my presentation,
if there's anything that doesn't make sense, please tell me about it.
It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft
with the strategies possible if we moved the quorum requirement to before
step 2 (some
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:35:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ugh. I'd suggest reusing the same symbols and considering them to be "reset"
> each time you say "An option, ". Something like:
>
> W, X, Y, Z -- any option
> S -- any option with a supermajority requirement
>
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 02:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> A.6 Vote Counting
Evidently supermajority handling is still an open issue. FWIW, I prefer
the original way: compare against the default option and drop them early
if they don't make it.
> 2. We drop the weakest defeats from the
Hello Raul,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 02:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> As always, if there are any flaws in my thinking or in my presentation,
> please tell me. This is a fairly complete rewrite so please scrutinize
> it suspiciously.
>
> A.6 Vote Counting [...]
I like this draft. I think
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:11:43AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> I would like to know the result of this ballot.
>
> ACB
> ACB
> CBA
> CBA
> CBA
>
> Where A is default and C requires a supermajority (as far as I can tell
> its A, even though B, not needing a supermajority, beat it pairwise).
Wha
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:14:16AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> What I've noticed in response to my proposal is that no-one has actually
> mention my proposal, which is unusual, considering the subject title of
> the post, but instead have been discussing criteria, such as "whether
> supermajori
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
