Drake Diedrich wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:46:06PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
[something or other]
If this was a real post and not a troll ... you need to be a *bit* less
emphatic with your opinions and more clear with your justifications. The
modification of IRV to handle equally
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:46:06PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
>
> This is a lengthy argument against the current Debian problem of
> wrongly rejecting Mr Branden Robinson who would almost certainly be
> the winner if the method of the last election was maximally proportional
> (and passing P2) and
Hi,
> He's one of /THEM/ and, no, I'm not permitted to go into details.
Well, if we're having THAT kind of discussion, there's a couple of quotes
which have been censored from the *CENSORED* report which prove that
they have sucxiqz567$%&
NO CARRIER
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > This election has demonstrated quite nicely that those Debian developers
> > who voted prefer Martin to any other single candidate. In other words, if
> > you held a vote which would ask whether to annul
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> This election has demonstrated quite nicely that those Debian developers
> who voted prefer Martin to any other single candidate. In other words, if
> you held a vote which would ask whether to annul the vote and replace
> Marti
Hi,
Summary of my point:
This election has demonstrated quite nicely that those Debian developers
who voted prefer Martin to any other single candidate. In other words, if
you held a vote which would ask whether to annul the vote and replace
Martin with Brandon, the majority would be against t
This is a lengthy argument against the current Debian problem of
wrongly rejecting Mr Branden Robinson who would almost certainly be
the winner if the method of the last election was maximally proportional
(and passing P2) and monotonic. I.e. the method then is almost the
smallest adjustment that
7 matches
Mail list logo
