On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:11:04PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Yeah, in the case you're positing, there'd be "explain why the elitist
> cabal are refusing to inact the will of the people as has been clearly
> expressed". Having "group responsible will ignore the outcome of the GR"
> as one of you
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:58:29PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:32:07PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > It offends my aesthetic senses as a programmer. ;-)
> >
> > Rewriting it as
> >
> > >>> e. If a majority of n:m is required for A, and B is the default
>
> If they believe the current situation is superior to any of the
> proposed changes, they should propose or second an amendment that
> simply preserves the status-quo, and only rank options they find
> unacceptable below the default option.
Since this is the case, why do we ne
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:13:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What do you propose? Isn't the scope of the discussion our voting
> > system? Do you propose to limit suffrage within the Debian Project?
>
> At the moment, I'm pr
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:08:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of
> proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people
> see in your proposal and change your proposal to avoid those drawbacks;
> likewise, when ot
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:04:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:52:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I argue that we do want neutrality. It's the same thing as arguing
> > against supermajorities.
>
> What kind of neutrality do we want?
The kind that makes it rewa
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:20:00PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I think we could have this benefit even without a supermajority
> requirement, because our voting system is more sophisticated than
> the yes/no model you're using. Suppose an option wins with only 51:49
> support. Just like in y
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 09:20:59PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > e. If a majority of n:1 is required for A, and B is the default
> > option, N(B,A) is n. In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1.
> I would generalize that to n:m (a 60% majority is 3:2, for instance).
Or 1.5:1!
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:15:52AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:28:08PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I guess our ftpmasters will love you.
> I don't expect our ftpmasters to act on an rm -rf resolution if they
> see there's another vote on the way. There's always
> If they believe the current situation is superior to any of the
> proposed changes, they should propose or second an amendment that
> simply preserves the status-quo, and only rank options they find
> unacceptable below the default option.
Since this is the case, why do we ne
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:13:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What do you propose? Isn't the scope of the discussion our voting
> > system? Do you propose to limit suffrage within the Debian Project?
>
> At the moment, I'm pr
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:08:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of
> proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people
> see in your proposal and change your proposal to avoid those drawbacks;
> likewise, when ot
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:04:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:52:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I argue that we do want neutrality. It's the same thing as arguing
> > against supermajorities.
>
> What kind of neutrality do we want?
The kind that makes it rewa
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:20:00PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I think we could have this benefit even without a supermajority
> requirement, because our voting system is more sophisticated than
> the yes/no model you're using. Suppose an option wins with only 51:49
> support. Just like in y
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 09:20:59PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > e. If a majority of n:1 is required for A, and B is the default
> > option, N(B,A) is n. In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1.
> I would generalize that to n:m (a 60% majority is 3:2, for instance).
Or 1.5:1!
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 02:15:52AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:28:08PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > I guess our ftpmasters will love you.
> I don't expect our ftpmasters to act on an rm -rf resolution if they
> see there's another vote on the way. There's always
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:28:08PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I guess our ftpmasters will love you.
I don't expect our ftpmasters to act on an rm -rf resolution if they
see there's another vote on the way. There's always plenty of more
urgent stuff to do.
Richard Braakman
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> Is there another reason for introducing that complexity?
>
No. It's not that important.
--
Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
pgprd8IxAfVsi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:32:07PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> It offends my aesthetic senses as a programmer. ;-)
>
> Rewriting it as
>
> >>> e. If a majority of n:m is required for A, and B is the default
> >>> option, N(B,A) is (n/m). In all other cases, N(B,A) is
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > > e. If a majority of n:1 is required for A, and B is the default
> > > option, N(B,A) is n. In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1.
> >
> > I would generalize that to n:m (a 60% majority is 3:2, for instance).
>
> Why? Describing this would make the draft
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 08:28:08PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> I guess our ftpmasters will love you.
I don't expect our ftpmasters to act on an rm -rf resolution if they
see there's another vote on the way. There's always plenty of more
urgent stuff to do.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> Is there another reason for introducing that complexity?
>
No. It's not that important.
--
Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
msg02212/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:32:07PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> It offends my aesthetic senses as a programmer. ;-)
>
> Rewriting it as
>
> >>> e. If a majority of n:m is required for A, and B is the default
> >>> option, N(B,A) is (n/m). In all other cases, N(B,A) is
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 09:20:59PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> The first attempt didn't make it, apparently.
Yes, it turns out that it double-bounced before it got to
lists.debian.org.
> > c. An option, A, defeats an option, B, if N(A,B)*V(A,B) is
> > larger than N(A,B)*V(B,A)
The purpose of this message is not to provoke debate. This is for
people who want to know where I think things are going. If there's
something important that's not listed here, please tell me [us] about
why it's important.
I'd rather we delay debate on each of these issues until we have a draft
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > > e. If a majority of n:1 is required for A, and B is the default
> > > option, N(B,A) is n. In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1.
> >
> > I would generalize that to n:m (a 60% majority is 3:2, for instance).
>
> Why? Describing this would make the draft
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> [This is my second attempt at sending this message.]
>
The first attempt didn't make it, apparently.
> c. An option, A, defeats an option, B, if N(A,B)*V(A,B) is
>larger than N(A,B)*V(B,A), and the (A,B) defeat has not
>been dropped.
This does
[This is my second attempt at sending this message.]
Here's a vote counting proposal which corresponds to the
examples listed in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00321.html
__
A.6 Vote Counting
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Feel free to send me a test message [off list] if today is Nov 24.
Indeed we have Nov 24 in middle Europe, now. The last message I saw
from you on debian-devel was <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I hope this helps,
Jochen
--
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote
> > #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
> > a bit of a pain to fix that :-)
>
> restore from backup.
>
> restore from snapshot.debia
I sent a draft of A.6 to debian-vote a number of hours ago. I've still
not received a copy of my message. Because of some rather severe
problems in the global dns servers [mostly yesterday, but some today],
things may not be working the way they normally work.
This is a test message to see if I
Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote
> #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
> a bit of a pain to fix that :-)
restore from backup.
restore from snapshot.debian.org
not that hard.
-john
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 09:20:59PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> The first attempt didn't make it, apparently.
Yes, it turns out that it double-bounced before it got to
lists.debian.org.
> > c. An option, A, defeats an option, B, if N(A,B)*V(A,B) is
> > larger than N(A,B)*V(B,A)
The purpose of this message is not to provoke debate. This is for
people who want to know where I think things are going. If there's
something important that's not listed here, please tell me [us] about
why it's important.
I'd rather we delay debate on each of these issues until we have a draft
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:07:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Normally, quorum applies to a meeting. What sequence of events in
> Debian's voting process do you hold as analogous to "a meeting"?
The number of people who receive the ballot (and read it) would be the
ones attending the meeting, wh
On Nov 24, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it
> > passes. But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced
> > substantially, and this requires proponents to maint
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> [This is my second attempt at sending this message.]
>
The first attempt didn't make it, apparently.
> c. An option, A, defeats an option, B, if N(A,B)*V(A,B) is
>larger than N(A,B)*V(B,A), and the (A,B) defeat has not
>been dropped.
This does
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it
> passes. But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced
> substantially, and this requires proponents to maintain a long-term
> interest in passage. It
[This is my second attempt at sending this message.]
Here's a vote counting proposal which corresponds to the
examples listed in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00321.html
__
A.6 Vote Counting
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Feel free to send me a test message [off list] if today is Nov 24.
Indeed we have Nov 24 in middle Europe, now. The last message I saw
from you on debian-devel was <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
I hope this helps,
Jochen
--
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Chris Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote
> > #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
> > a bit of a pain to fix that :-)
>
> restore from backup.
>
> restore from snapshot.debia
I sent a draft of A.6 to debian-vote a number of hours ago. I've still
not received a copy of my message. Because of some rather severe
problems in the global dns servers [mostly yesterday, but some today],
things may not be working the way they normally work.
This is a test message to see if I
Chris Lawrence wrote:
>
> Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote
> #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be
> a bit of a pain to fix that :-)
restore from backup.
restore from snapshot.debian.org
not that hard.
-john
--
To UNSUBSCR
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:07:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Normally, quorum applies to a meeting. What sequence of events in
> Debian's voting process do you hold as analogous to "a meeting"?
The number of people who receive the ballot (and read it) would be the
ones attending the meeting, wh
On Nov 24, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it
> > passes. But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced
> > substantially, and this requires proponents to maint
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it
> passes. But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced
> substantially, and this requires proponents to maintain a long-term
> interest in passage. It
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> On Nov 24, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> How do we know this would happen at all, let alone "ad nauseum"?
Chris> I can't prove that it *would* happen, but it's a definite
Chris> possibility.
Chris> It also encourages proponents to
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> On Nov 24, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> How do we know this would happen at all, let alone "ad nauseum"?
Chris> I can't prove that it *would* happen, but it's a definite
Chris> possibility.
Chris> It also encourages proponents to
On Nov 24, Branden Robinson wrote:
> How do we know this would happen at all, let alone "ad nauseum"?
I can't prove that it *would* happen, but it's a definite
possibility.
A scenario: Assume controversial subject X arises and the developer
community is evenly split, pro/con. Vote #1 occurs. 6
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:48:05AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Nov 19, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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 h
50 matches
Mail list logo
