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
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
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
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
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
i received a banner to do this since i enteres the
web as a 50,000,000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
i received a banner to do this since i enteres the
web as a 50,000,000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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
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 (
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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
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 (
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
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
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
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
40 matches
Mail list logo