On 2003-11-12 00:34:29 + Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The Open Use logo is freely licensed, isn't it? If it isn't, it
should
be.
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the
Debian project, but d
On 2003-11-12 00:34:29 + Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The Open Use logo is freely licensed, isn't it? If it isn't, it
should
be.
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the
Debian project, but does
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:11:55 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:11:55 -0500, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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
> 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, 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 19:30:14 -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, 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 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
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 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
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 might be
mistaken, though. (there has been an ironic comment on this matter b
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 might be
mistaken, though. (there has been an ironic comment on this matter b
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 provide this. If the introduction of
> default options violates this
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 provide this. If the introduction of
> default options violates this
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:58:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
> > eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
> > ballot (ratify
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > 2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
> >
> > Huh? We
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:53:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
>
> It's a technical term. We're asking for people to give their preferences
> in a list of options; if that'
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 provide this. If the introduction of
> default options violates this
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:58:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
> > eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
> > ballot (ratify
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > 2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
> >
> > Huh? We
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:53:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
>
> It's a technical term. We're asking for people to give their preferences
> in a list of options; if that'
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 provide this. If the introduction of
> default options violates this
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That you're sincerely disappointed in the outcome of the last GR
> doesn't indicate a flaw in the system though -- pretty much every time
> we have two options on the ballot, *someone* is going to be
> disappointed.
You're associatin
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That you're sincerely disappointed in the outcome of the last GR
> doesn't indicate a flaw in the system though -- pretty much every time
> we have two options on the ballot, *someone* is going to be
> disappointed.
You're associatin
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:28:54PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs.
> I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A
> over C. I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C
> over A or av
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Not necessarily. A person who ranks their preferences insincerely
> > might simply feel they're using the system the way it was designed
> > to be used.
> I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
It's a technical
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:28:54PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs.
> I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A
> over C. I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C
> over A or av
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Not necessarily. A person who ranks their preferences insincerely
> > might simply feel they're using the system the way it was designed
> > to be used.
> I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
It's a technical
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
> >>if
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
> >>if
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
>
> Huh? We don't ship any hardware or wetware; and the author of
> the sc has stated
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
>>if
>> the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
>> orthogona
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
>
> Huh? We don't ship any hardware or wetware; and the author of
> the sc has stated
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
>>if
>> the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
>> orthogona
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above
> any of
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
> >> agree th
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 05:09:09 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:08:49AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A.2.3 However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the
>> Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4).
>>
>> A.3.4. In cases of doubt th
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above
> any of
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I conclude from this that we have a system where people are
> perfectly comfortable with voicing no challenge or opposition to a
> proposal; they just rank it below "further discussion". Given that
> ample opportunity
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
>> agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
> Why so? I'm not saying I disag
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
> >> agree th
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 05:09:09 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:08:49AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A.2.3 However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the
>> Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4).
>>
>> A.3.4. In cases of doubt th
> I beg to differ. After catching up on the list I see that a couple
> of people claim to have ranked option C below further discussion.
>
> Option C was proposed as "AMENDMENT BR3" to this mailing list[1].
>
> There *was* no discussion of it, really. It collected its seconds,
> and ther
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I conclude from this that we have a system where people are
> perfectly comfortable with voicing no challenge or opposition to a
> proposal; they just rank it below "further discussion". Given that
> ample opportunity
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
>> agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
> Why so? I'm not saying I disag
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as
> I beg to differ. After catching up on the list I see that a couple
> of people claim to have ranked option C below further discussion.
>
> Option C was proposed as "AMENDMENT BR3" to this mailing list[1].
>
> There *was* no discussion of it, really. It collected its seconds,
> and ther
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
>the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
>orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.
FWIW, in my opinion there are five distinct
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
>the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
>orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.
FWIW, in my opinion there are five distinct
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
> eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
> ballot (ratify this? [Y/N]).
Note that we already had this happen in the instance o
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:42:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
> > continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
> > treated
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:22:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What I have trouble understanding is why you might classify that sort of
> > approach as insincere. It's not as if we have some shortage of people
> > wanting to talk about things on our lists. Nor is it the case that
> > ther
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
> eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
> ballot (ratify this? [Y/N]).
Note that we already had this happen in the instance o
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:42:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
> > continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
> > treated
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:19:25PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > > concurrently.
>
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:22:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > What I have trouble understanding is why you might classify that sort of
> > approach as insincere. It's not as if we have some shortage of people
> > wanting to talk about things on our lists. Nor is it the case that
> > ther
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
> agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
Why so? I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to hear someone else's
thoughts on the phenomenon. I'm interested i
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:19:25PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > > concurrently.
>
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
> agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
Why so? I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to hear someone else's
thoughts on the phenomenon. I'm interested i
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
> > > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> > >
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> > > perso
> > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > concurrently.
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll give it very serious consideration, but first I would like some
> g
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above any
> of the other op
> > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > concurrently.
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll give it very serious consideration, but first I would like some
> g
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above any
> of the other op
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
> continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
> treated differently to:
>
> [ ] Remove non-free?
> [ ] Don't chan
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:09:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I disagree with this summary. It's possible that Branden might disagree
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00099.html).
That's overstating it a little bit. That message was just my way of
being concilia
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:19:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:54:32 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > Indeed, from his comments, I think even the Branden might be happy
> > with the two separated, as long as they are on two different
> > ballots
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> > personal attack. How else is one to interpret "you are really
> > contributing
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
> continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
> treated differently to:
>
> [ ] Remove non-free?
> [ ] Don't chan
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:09:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I disagree with this summary. It's possible that Branden might disagree
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00099.html).
That's overstating it a little bit. That message was just my way of
being concilia
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:19:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:54:32 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Indeed, from his comments, I think even the Branden might be happy
> > with the two separated, as long as they are on two different
> > ballots.
>
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
> > personal attack. How else is one to interpret "you are really
> > contributing
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:29:41PM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I tried to do something similar with my Debian voting system page at
>
> http://seehuhn.de/comp/vote.html
>
> Suggestions how this page could be improved are very welcome.
Yes! Let's move it to the the http://www.debian.org/vote
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:29:41PM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I tried to do something similar with my Debian voting system page at
>
> http://seehuhn.de/comp/vote.html
>
> Suggestions how this page could be improved are very welcome.
Yes! Let's move it to the the http://www.debian.org/vote
On Nov 3, 2003, at 01:22, Anthony Towns wrote:
Where's our origin? It's at "keep doing what we're doing now".
It's not quite at the origin; we have, as a project, not made any
formal decision to keep i386. If we were to vote on it, we would of, I
suppose under 4.1.5 of the Constitution.
(A
On Nov 2, 2003, at 17:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, if there really four *orthogonal* issues, then maybe
there should be four ballots. It's only when the issues are
intertwined
that it makes sense to put them on the same ballot.
That's really all I'm saying.
On Nov 3, 2003, at 01:22, Anthony Towns wrote:
Where's our origin? It's at "keep doing what we're doing now".
It's not quite at the origin; we have, as a project, not made any
formal decision to keep i386. If we were to vote on it, we would of, I
suppose under 4.1.5 of the Constitution.
(Aside
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or
> > replace the text of the resolution with that?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:49:54PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Gosh. Have you been reading the thread
On Nov 2, 2003, at 17:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, if there really four *orthogonal* issues, then maybe
there should be four ballots. It's only when the issues are
intertwined
that it makes sense to put them on the same ballot.
That's really all I'm saying.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or
> > replace the text of the resolution with that?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:49:54PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Gosh. Have you been reading the thread
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
> >Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
> >produce a distribution."
>
> Huh? D
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:22:50PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
> > continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
> > treated differently to:
> > [ ] Remove non-free?
> > [ ] Don't
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
> >Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
> >produce a distribution."
>
> Huh? D
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:22:50PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
> > continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
> > treated differently to:
> > [ ] Remove non-free?
> > [ ] Don't
1 - 100 of 300 matches
Mail list logo
