Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm

2014-02-22 Thread Matthias Urlichs
Hi, Markus Schulze: > the Condorcet criterion and the later-no-harm criterion > are incompatible. Therefore, the fact that Debian's Condorcet > method violates the later-no-harm criterion doesn't come > from the order of its checks. > That may be so, but our method of removing choices that fail t

Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm

2014-02-22 Thread Markus Schulze
Hallo, the Condorcet criterion and the later-no-harm criterion are incompatible. Therefore, the fact that Debian's Condorcet method violates the later-no-harm criterion doesn't come from the order of its checks. Markus Schulze -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org wi

Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm

2014-02-22 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 01:18:21PM +0100, Thue Janus Kristensen wrote: > There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in > Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution > §A.6.3 [2]. This also reminded me of https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2

Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm

2014-02-22 Thread Thue Janus Kristensen
There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution §A.6.3 [2]. The problem was visible in the recent CTTE init system vote, as noted by fx Steve Langasek [3]. Given options * systemd (D) * upstart (U) * F