On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:00:37AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> I've decided to ask the DPL and project secretary to rule on this issue
> based on the following considerations:
> - the Project Secretary is the guardian of the constitution and thus the
> correct role to rule on consequences of previ
Sorry for the late reply, but I've been so frustrated with things over the
past week that I decided to take a break and see how things worked out
first.
On Monday 15 December 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:09:28 +0100]:
> > Because any votes below FD do not count t
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> - the Project Secretary is the guardian of the constitution
This precise statement makes your request void.
> and thus the correct role to rule on consequences of previous votes;
Our Secretary is the *guardian* of the constitution, not the one
(Restricting to d-vote.)
Thank you for your quick reply.
On Tuesday 23 December 2008, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> But note that even if the super-majority issue causes some choices to
> have a low priority of winning, we the project at large can still learn
> very interesting things by studying the Co
Dear Steve and Bdale,
Given that the current status of the current "lenny firmware" vote is that
it will go forward, I would appreciate if the DPL and/or the Project
Secretary could rule on the following issue.
In the discussion about the vote various people have argued that a vote
for "furthe
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 00:56 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Hi Frans!
> That is not the only problem.
I agree, but I didn't think a CFV preamble was the right place to try
and discuss this in detail. Happy to have further discussion about it
in debian-vote.
> > However, after thinking long and hard a
Hello Bdale,
Thanks a lot for this mail. I had been planning to write a mail asking for
a standpoint on the vote, but I'm glad I waited long enough for this to
arrive first.
On Monday 22 December 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> It is clear that there are flaws with the way the current b
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:39:33PM -0700, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>41b0a520-c6c1-4e7b-8c49-74ee85faf242
>[ 6 ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
>[ 5 ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With the resignation of our project Secretary, under section 7.2 of the
Debian Constitution, as Chairman of the Debian Technical Committee, I
now serve as the Acting Secretary.
Thank you to those of you who have shown your support over the past few
Hallo,
actually, the discussion surrounding supermajorities
in Condorcet goes back to 2000. See e.g.:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/11/msg00156.html
Between 2000 and 2002, this issue was discussed
off-list resp. at the Debian-EM Joint Committee
mailing list. See also section 7 of my p
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:55:02PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> So, can't this be fixed by just changing the algorithm from "drop all
> options which don't pass majority requirements, then determine the
> winner" to "determine the winner, then check whether the winner passes
> majority requireme
Ean Schuessler wrote:
The point of the super majority was to "engrave the social contract in stone". From the
beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort the shape of the
organization and we wanted a safeguard against the system being gamed by a commercial organizatio
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
> an exploit of FPTP.
The point of the super majority was to "engrave the social contract in stone".
From the beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort
the sh
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 06:34:41PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
> have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
> see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
> for this one.
>
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 08:12:54AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Condorcet is orthogonal to the issue.
It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
an exploit of FPTP.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> You know that was not the point of my last message. Condorcet is orthogonal
> to the issue. A condorcet vote is just a full run off of options against one
> and other conducted via a ranking. The presence of "further discussion"
> effectively provides a "we should do this
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Oh gee, so the US is using Condorcet now?
You know that was not the point of my last message. Condorcet is orthogonal to
the issue. A condorcet vote is just a full run off of options against one and
other conducted via a ranking. The presence of "further discuss
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Perhaps you can propose some language that you think would unambiguously
> capture my position? I not only think the current language is unambiguous,
> I think the interpretation of "supersede" that has been tendered by the
> previous secretary is suffi
18 matches
Mail list logo
