On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 14:10, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Perhaps I lost the election [...]
Nice try, we all know you won, just like last year, as described plainly
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;-)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> 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 that proposal.
Perhaps I lost the election because too many people could not find the
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:24:10AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I think we are loosing the track again. What is the problem you are
> trying to solve here? I think that your draft in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was really ok.
Hmm... that says
< If there are defeats between options in the Schwar
At 03\04\22 10:35 +0200 Tuesday, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>[] Re Condorcet cuckoos promotin3.ems
>*** PGP Signature Status: unknown
>*** Signer: Unknown, Key ID xD70AAFF9
>*** Signed: 03\04\22 8:35:55 PM
>*** Verified: 03\04\22 10:21:05 PM
>*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
>
>Hi,
>
>Jochen Voss w
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:39:01PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
> The ballot paper
>
> 4
>
> is a special paper that gives the voter a power equal to 50,000 times
> the power of all other ballot papers. Only Mr Urlichs knows that.
Wrong, it's '6'.
Michael
--
67% of girls are stupid
Hi,
Craig Carey wrote:
> The ballot paper
> 4
> is a special paper that gives the voter a power equal to 50,000 times
> the power of all other ballot papers. Only Mr Urlichs knows that.
>
*ROTFL*
> The method can be used to elect the leader of the Debian project,
> but due to DCMA encrypt
At 03\04\21 16:46 +0200 Monday, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>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 sucxiqz5
Hi,
Jochen Voss wrote:
> [ Cc to debian-vote, bacause it may be of general interest. ]
>
It would be if he had actually answered the question.
--
Matthias Urlichs|{M:U} Consulting|http://smurf.noris.de/
--
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed
be
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:05:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think we should separate the definition of terminology of
> defeats from the details of constructions of the Schwartz set.
I think we are loosing the track again. What is the problem you are
trying to solve here?
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Like so?
Yes, I like this approach much better.
A minor issue:
> 6. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then [...]
Could we write something like "When there are no more defeats left in
the Schwartz
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:18:33AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, given that "defeats" is a verb and we're using "defeat" as a
> noun, maybe it would be clearer to say:
>
> 4. We construct the Schwartz set based on undropped options and
> defeats:
>a. The vot
[ Cc to debian-vote, bacause it may be of general interest. ]
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:37:53PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
> At 03\04\21 22:42 +0200 Monday, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 08:22:51PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
> > > Jochen Voss keeps online a false claim that
12 matches
Mail list logo
