On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:37:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (And no, I don't much like saying "Debian will be 100% free", then
> > deliberately contradicting yourself with an "except for...". But it's
> > better to be up fro
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:44:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > (BTW, in this proposed ballot, would the default option per the SRP be
> > "Further Discussion" or "Don't change social contract"?)
The default option for general resolutions is "Further Discussion",
the default option for DPL e
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:37:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (And no, I don't much like saying "Debian will be 100% free", then
> > deliberately contradicting yourself with an "except for...". But it's
> > better to be up fro
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:44:07PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > (BTW, in this proposed ballot, would the default option per the SRP be
> > "Further Discussion" or "Don't change social contract"?)
The default option for general resolutions is "Further Discussion",
the default option for DPL e
On Nov 12, 2003, at 01:24, Buddha Buck wrote:
252 ballots ranking 1234
253 ballots ranking 2314
251 ballots ranking 3124
250 ballots ranking 2221
It would strongly appear I misread the ballot results in my last post.
Oops.
On Nov 11, 2003, at 19:47, Branden Robinson wrote:
Of course it does. Consider:
[ ] Choice 1: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract(, Keep Debian
Swirl Red)
[ ] Choice 2: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian
Swirl Green
[ ] Choice 3: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contr
On Nov 12, 2003, at 01:24, Buddha Buck wrote:
252 ballots ranking 1234
253 ballots ranking 2314
251 ballots ranking 3124
250 ballots ranking 2221
It would strongly appear I misread the ballot results in my last post.
Oops.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscr
On Nov 11, 2003, at 19:47, Branden Robinson wrote:
Of course it does. Consider:
[ ] Choice 1: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract(, Keep Debian
Swirl Red)
[ ] Choice 2: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract, Make Debian
Swirl Green
[ ] Choice 3: Remove Clause 5 of the Social Contract
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > In general, people who wish to vote insincerely need to have highly
> > accurate predictions of the outcome of the vote to make sure their
> > insincere vote doesn't result in an outcome less desirable than a
> > sincere vote.
On T
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > In general, people who wish to vote insincerely need to have highly
> > accurate predictions of the outcome of the vote to make sure their
> > insincere vote doesn't result in an outcome less desirable than a
> > sincere vote.
On T
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:26:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > AIUI, making this explicit and adding competing alternatives can only
> > prejudice the original proposal if the success of that proposal
> > depended on an ambiguous meaning.
> That doesn't follow at all, as far as I can tell.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:26:38PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > AIUI, making this explicit and adding competing alternatives can only
> > prejudice the original proposal if the success of that proposal
> > depended on an ambiguous meaning.
> That doesn't follow at all, as far as I can tell.
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:30:24 -0500, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> What happens? Our voting system does not give us the ability to
>>> reach the common-sense conclusion that
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:30:24 -0500, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> What happens? Our voting system does not give us the ability to
>>> reach the common-sense conclusion that
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 contrac
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 ensur
16 matches
Mail list logo
