Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: >> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract" >> > supermajority

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Buddha Buck
Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract" su

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Buddha Buck
Branden Robinson wrote: On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract" supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three. This pretty much ensures t

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:30:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option A, and >> though I may not like further discussion, I like the other options >> even l

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: >> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract" >> > supermajority

Re: contact prize department

2003-11-11 Thread Barbara G
i received a banner to do this since i enteres the web as a 50,000,000   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:30:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option A, and >> though I may not like further discussion, I like the other options >> even l

Re: contact prize department

2003-11-11 Thread Barbara G
i received a banner to do this since i enteres the web as a 50,000,000   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Robert Woodcock
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:47:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is this an effort to wave aside > basically everything I've said, or are you being more subtle? One doesn't wave aside what you've said. One only waves aside what you can't finish saying. Out

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:28:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > The problem, as I see it, is that Branden's current proposal reads to > some people like a "drop distribution of non-free, need 3:1 supermajority > vote to reinstate that distribution" proposal to some people, I've said over and over a

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote: > The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a > supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1. Yes, each one individually. Not the options' common parts interpretively taken together. > Otherwise al

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Robert Woodcock
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:47:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is this an effort to wave aside > basically everything I've said, or are you being more subtle? One doesn't wave aside what you've said. One only waves aside what you can't finish saying. Out

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:18:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote: > > > > > > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free > > > [ ] Change social contract, don't re

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 04:55:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > (a) Because "support" isn't really what we're talking about here -- > we're worried not about whether bugs in glibc that only appear when using > non-free software will get fixed (they will), but rather whether we'll > allow our infra

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:56:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Alternatively, maybe people could second the > draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00148.html Anthony didn't propose it as an amendment, but I guess he c

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free > > as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been > > doing so for qui

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > Is there *ever* a strategic advantage, then, to not ranking "further > discussion" immediately behind your most-preferred-choice? Assuming your true preference is (A->B->D->C) ([1243]) where D is the default option and A, B, and C require a 3:1 majori

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:28:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > The problem, as I see it, is that Branden's current proposal reads to > some people like a "drop distribution of non-free, need 3:1 supermajority > vote to reinstate that distribution" proposal to some people, I've said over and over a

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote: > The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a > supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1. Yes, each one individually. Not the options' common parts interpretively taken together. > Otherwise al

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract" > > supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three. > > > > This pretty much ensures the defeat

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:18:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote: > > > > > > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free > > > [ ] Change social contract, don't re

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:20:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and > > brochures freely-licensed? > > AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I migh

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
[snip] Ok, thanks! -- G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senato

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 04:55:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > (a) Because "support" isn't really what we're talking about here -- > we're worried not about whether bugs in glibc that only appear when using > non-free software will get fixed (they will), but rather whether we'll > allow our infra

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Actually deploying a strategy does mean your voting insincerely. By > definition. Voting insincerely shouldn't be taken as an insult. I take it you and Manoj have a difference of opinion on this point. Or am I misunderstanding one (

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option > A, and though I may not like further discussion, I like the other > options even less than further discussion. > > Ranking options below furter discussio

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most > > strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere. > > Cloneproof SSD is supposed to

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:56:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Alternatively, maybe people could second the > draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00148.html Anthony didn't propose it as an amendment, but I guess he c

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Giving a gypsy a gold coin helps. (null pointer dereferencing metaphor) Can you help me recover from the exception that was just thrown? :) -- G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from history or, De

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:41PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > I'll be interested in seeing how you get rid of strategic voters, since > from my POV that's a property of the method, not a deficiency. My goal is much more modest than "getting rid of strategic voting"; it may be impossible

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: > Is there *ever* a strategic advantage, then, to not ranking "further > discussion" immediately behind your most-preferred-choice? Assuming your true preference is (A->B->D->C) ([1243]) where D is the default option and A, B, and C require a 3:1 majori

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free > > as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been > > doing so for qui

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract" > > supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three. > > > > This pretty much ensures the defeat

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:20:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and > > brochures freely-licensed? > > AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I migh

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
[snip] Ok, thanks! -- G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senato

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Actually deploying a strategy does mean your voting insincerely. By > definition. Voting insincerely shouldn't be taken as an insult. I take it you and Manoj have a difference of opinion on this point. Or am I misunderstanding one (

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option > A, and though I may not like further discussion, I like the other > options even less than further discussion. > > Ranking options below furter discussio

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most > > strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere. > > Cloneproof SSD is supposed to

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Giving a gypsy a gold coin helps. (null pointer dereferencing metaphor) Can you help me recover from the exception that was just thrown? :) -- G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from history or, De

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

2003-11-11 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:41PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > I'll be interested in seeing how you get rid of strategic voters, since > from my POV that's a property of the method, not a deficiency. My goal is much more modest than "getting rid of strategic voting"; it may be impossible