Re: Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian

2013-05-10 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 04:40:37PM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > > So my understanding of things is that for your first 2 examples, > > voters for B being dishonest resulted in C winning > > In CSSD, as defined in the Debian Constitution (and as I define it > too), but disregarding the default

Re: Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian

2013-05-10 Thread Kalle Kivimaa
On 10May, 2013, at 23.40 , Michael Ossipoff wrote: > I want to add that I can't find any rule for choosing the numerical value of > R. The quorum R is usually 3 * 1/2 * sqrt( number of Debian Developers ). This is currently a bit over 47. Majority is usually a simple majority. See Constitution

Re: Norman Petry and I (Ossipoff) recommended CSSD, but Schwartz Woodall is a better voting system for Debian

2013-05-10 Thread Michael Ossipoff
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:28:26AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote: >> >> Below, I'll show examples of what can happen, but first I'll just >> verbally summarize what can happen: First of all, of course A is the >> CW. A is the "sincere CW". In co