Re: Another proposal

On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:21:08AM +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Le samedi 30 septembre 2006 à 20:53 -0700, Daniel Burrows a écrit : > > --- snip here --- > > == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader == > > > > The Debian proj

Re: Another proposal

Le samedi 30 septembre 2006 à 20:53 -0700, Daniel Burrows a écrit : > --- snip here --- > == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader == > > The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian > - Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor su

Re: Another proposal

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:17:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader == > The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian > Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr > Towns may lead or pa

Re: Another proposal

> == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader == > > The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian > Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr > Towns may lead or participate in outside Debian. Seconded -- .''`. Aurelien

Re: Another proposal

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:17:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >I don't like the plethora of proposals that come up on -vote these days, >but Loïc's proposed GR doesn't look acceptable to me. > >The text of the proposal is attached. >-- > .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ >: :' :

Re: Another proposal

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:17:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > I don't like the plethora of proposals that come up on -vote these days, > but Loïc's proposed GR doesn't look acceptable to me. I'd like to offer an amendment to this proposal. Changes: *

Re: Another proposal

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:17:42AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader == > > The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian > Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr > Towns may lead or

Re: Another proposal

Josselin Mouette wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader == > > The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian > Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr > Towns

Re: Another proposal

Le dim 1 octobre 2006 00:17, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > I don't like the plethora of proposals that come up on -vote these > days, but Loïc's proposed GR doesn't look acceptable to me. > > The text of the proposal is attached. == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader == The

Re: Another proposal

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: > == Reaffirm support for Anthony Towns as the Project Leader == > > The Debian project reaffirms support to Anthony Towns as the Debian > Project Leader. However, it doesn't endorse nor support any projects Mr > Towns may lead or participate in out

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:07:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Normally, quorum applies to a meeting. What sequence of events in > Debian's voting process do you hold as analogous to "a meeting"? The number of people who receive the ballot (and read it) would be the ones attending the meeting, wh

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:07:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Normally, quorum applies to a meeting. What sequence of events in > Debian's voting process do you hold as analogous to "a meeting"? The number of people who receive the ballot (and read it) would be the ones attending the meeting, wh

Re: Another proposal.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > And hopefully we wouldn't > stay in a state of frustration or anger for the whole 3 weeks. Hahahaha. Cheers, aj, now _that's_ an amusing joke -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't speak for a

Re: Another proposal.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > And hopefully we wouldn't > stay in a state of frustration or anger for the whole 3 weeks. Hahahaha. Cheers, aj, now _that's_ an amusing joke -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't speak for a

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences) > > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me. > > Er.. are you suggesting we s

Re: Another proposal.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences) > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me. Er.. are you suggesting we squelch debate on supermajority? None of the additions were "random". They wer

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > the whole supermajority thing i feel would make people vote insincerely. > the ony way to avoid it, as i see it, is to _remove entirely_ the Quorum > and Supermajority requirements. Just to repeat myself: I would suppor

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences) > > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me. > > Er.. are you suggesting we s

Re: Another proposal.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences) > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me. Er.. are you suggesting we squelch debate on supermajority? None of the additions were "random". They wer

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > the whole supermajority thing i feel would make people vote insincerely. > the ony way to avoid it, as i see it, is to _remove entirely_ the Quorum > and Supermajority requirements. Just to repeat myself: I would suppor

Re: Another proposal.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:57:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:48:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I don't understand, then. When have we ever had a non-election vote > > where the winning option *did* defeat the first runner-up by a 2:1 > > margin, let alone 3:1.

Re: Another proposal.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:57:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:48:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I don't understand, then. When have we ever had a non-election vote > > where the winning option *did* defeat the first runner-up by a 2:1 > > margin, let alone 3:1.

Re: Another proposal.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:48:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I don't understand, then. When have we ever had a non-election vote > where the winning option *did* defeat the first runner-up by a 2:1 > margin, let alone 3:1. I was unable to find one. The vote for the constitution. That sho

Re: Another proposal.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:48:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I don't understand, then. When have we ever had a non-election vote > where the winning option *did* defeat the first runner-up by a 2:1 > margin, let alone 3:1. I was unable to find one. The vote for the constitution. That sho

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, Andrew Pimlott: > > You also talk about only allowing insincere votes to cause the default > > option to win, but you can't distinguish between sincere and insincere > > votes in the system: > > Right, again what I really mean is, I oppose a system in which > insincere votes for the default a

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:53:20PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > If your actual preference is A S D, then voting A D S is still an > insincere vote by definition. Note that in this case, the voter *really, > honestly prefers* either of the two non-default options over the default, > but the resul

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:31:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > Likewise, we've never had an official vote where the winning option would > > > have failed to satisfy a 3:1 supermajority requirement. > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:2

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:31:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > Likewise, the 2002 election was not a runaway for any candidate (unless > > you're a Republican, where defeating a Democratic candidate by less than > > one percentage point counts as an "overwhelming mandate" for a > > hard-right con

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, Andrew Pimlott: > > You also talk about only allowing insincere votes to cause the default > > option to win, but you can't distinguish between sincere and insincere > > votes in the system: > > Right, again what I really mean is, I oppose a system in which > insincere votes for the default a

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:53:20PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > If your actual preference is A S D, then voting A D S is still an > insincere vote by definition. Note that in this case, the voter *really, > honestly prefers* either of the two non-default options over the default, > but the resul

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:31:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > Likewise, we've never had an official vote where the winning option would > > > have failed to satisfy a 3:1 supermajority requirement. > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:2

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:31:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > Likewise, the 2002 election was not a runaway for any candidate (unless > > you're a Republican, where defeating a Democratic candidate by less than > > one percentage point counts as an "overwhelming mandate" for a > > hard-right con

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, Buddha Buck: > You (and Matthias) seem to be assuming that if quorum isn't reached, > then the ballot measures should be shot down. I and John are saying > that if quorum isn't reached, then the trigger hasn't been pulled yet > (to stretch a metaphor). > > You are also applying quorum req

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, Buddha Buck: > You (and Matthias) seem to be assuming that if quorum isn't reached, > then the ballot measures should be shot down. I and John are saying > that if quorum isn't reached, then the trigger hasn't been pulled yet > (to stretch a metaphor). > > You are also applying quorum req

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:27:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met, > > > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF > > > and thus

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > *shrug* I don't care about quorums :) > > We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met > > if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quoru

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > But, I still insist that it is still not ok if the system allows an > insincere vote to hand victory to a non-default option. Uh, if you're just going to insist on it no matter what, there's not really much point discussing it with

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:27:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met, > > > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF > > > and thus

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > *shrug* I don't care about quorums :) > > We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met > > if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quoru

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > But, I still insist that it is still not ok if the system allows an > insincere vote to hand victory to a non-default option. Uh, if you're just going to insist on it no matter what, there's not really much point discussing it with

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: >> The only real issue is the one where your sincere vote: >> A S D(normal option, supermajority option, default option) >> will cause S to win (thanks to you letting it pass its supermajority), but >> your insincere vote:

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:53:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > The default option isn't > > something you can be particularly "sincere" about > > Your point here being that even if the default wins, the vote will > be held again

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have > > lost. On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:00:17AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger, > isn't it? No, but

Re: Another proposal.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > *shrug* I don't care about quorums :) > > We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met > if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quorum is not met, > the default option wins." Actually I would prefer

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have > lost. So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger, isn't it? Jochen -- Omm

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:53:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > What we'd like to do is something similar: > > * allow a pre-determined minority to block a vote. > > * allow them to express sincere preferences between options, > without being forced to invoke their minority b

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > Likewise, we've never had an official vote where the winning option would > > have failed to satisfy a 3:1 supermajority requirement. On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:23:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Sure we have. > > http://www.d

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met, > > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF > > and thus A has supermajority (at any ratio) over B and F. > > That would be bad.

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > You're saying, in essence, that since we've never had a problem getting > enough people involved in the vote that we shouldn't have any kind > of minimal requirements for getting people involved. Yes, you could > describe quorum in thi

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:58:27PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > In the case you mentioned, sentiment is for the proposal, so the option > should win -- assuming the vote is binding. If there are enough total > ballots to meet quorum, the vote is binding. If there aren't enough > total ballots t

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:42:33PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > In parliamentary terms, "conducting business" means "making decisions by > vote". Normally, a measure can't be defeated by lack of quorum. If > there is a lack of quorum, no vote can be held -- or if a vote is held > before quorum

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: Raul Miller wrote: Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes against the option. John H. Robinson, IV wrote: i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q vote

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: >> The only real issue is the one where your sincere vote: >> A S D(normal option, supermajority option, default option) >> will cause S to win (thanks to you letting it pass its supermajority), but >> your insincere vote:

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, Buddha Buck: > > 70 people are for the proposal, 10 against, the remaining 20 refuse to > > vote => the proposal fails. > > What do you mean "the proposal fails"? Is it dead, and can't be > resurrected? Is it up for "further discusion", with a future revote? I > feel that a lack of quor

Re: Another proposal.

Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, John H. Robinson, IV: i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to conduct business. [Matthias's comments rearranged...] Sorry, but I don't like that. With a quorum, the people against a proposal need to actively solicit support for t

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > >>Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met > >>and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes > >>against the option. John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > >i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes causes > >

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:03PM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:53:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > The default option isn't > > something you can be particularly "sincere" about > > Your point here being that even if the default wins, the vote will > be held again

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, John H. Robinson, IV: > i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to > conduct business. > OK. Let's say we have a quorum of 90 and a supermajority of 2:1. 70 people are for the proposal, 30 against => the proposal wins. 70 people are for the proposal, 10 against, t

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have > > lost. On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:00:17AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger, > isn't it? No, but

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > i may have misused/overloaded the term ballot, and used it when i should > have used measure. it is due to a lack of clear udnerstanding the > difference. Just in case this is important: A ballot is something which lists thin

Re: Another proposal.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > *shrug* I don't care about quorums :) > > We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met > if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quorum is not met, > the default option wins." Actually I would prefer

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have > lost. So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger, isn't it? Jochen -- Omm

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:53:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > What we'd like to do is something similar: > > * allow a pre-determined minority to block a vote. > > * allow them to express sincere preferences between options, > without being forced to invoke their minority b

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > Likewise, we've never had an official vote where the winning option would > > have failed to satisfy a 3:1 supermajority requirement. On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:23:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Sure we have. > > http://www.d

Re: Another proposal.

John H. Robinson, IV wrote: Raul Miller wrote: That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying is bad. I don't think you understood my objection. Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met and therefore cause the option to win. This disc

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > you are assuming that only proponents of a ballot will bother to vote. I'm not assuming that only proponents of an option on a ballot will bother to vote. I'm not sure what "proponents of a ballot" means, so I can't say wheth

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:12:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met, > > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF > > and thus A has supermajority (at any ratio) over B and F. > > That would be bad.

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > You're saying, in essence, that since we've never had a problem getting > enough people involved in the vote that we shouldn't have any kind > of minimal requirements for getting people involved. Yes, you could > describe quorum in thi

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:58:27PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > In the case you mentioned, sentiment is for the proposal, so the option > should win -- assuming the vote is binding. If there are enough total > ballots to meet quorum, the vote is binding. If there aren't enough > total ballots t

Re: Another proposal.

Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > John H. Robinson, IV: > > also, with the Condorcet + SSD election method, is the supermajority > > requirements really required? it does allow a vocal minority to block an > > action. > > No it doesn't. If a majority rank option A first, that option wins -- end >

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > > That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying > is bad. I don't think you understood my objection. > > Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met > and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere vot

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:42:33PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > In parliamentary terms, "conducting business" means "making decisions by > vote". Normally, a measure can't be defeated by lack of quorum. If > there is a lack of quorum, no vote can be held -- or if a vote is held > before quorum

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: Raul Miller wrote: Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes against the option. John H. Robinson, IV wrote: i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, Buddha Buck: > > 70 people are for the proposal, 10 against, the remaining 20 refuse to > > vote => the proposal fails. > > What do you mean "the proposal fails"? Is it dead, and can't be > resurrected? Is it up for "further discusion", with a future revote? I > feel that a lack of quor

Re: Another proposal.

Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, John H. Robinson, IV: i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to conduct business. [Matthias's comments rearranged...] Sorry, but I don't like that. With a quorum, the people against a proposal need to actively solicit support for the

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > >That would be bad. > > > >If you do it this way, there are circumstances where a vote against > >an option may cause that option to win (because without that vote the > >option wouldn't have met quorum). On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 02:21:05PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > I think y

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > >>Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met > >>and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes > >>against the option. John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > >i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes causes > >

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: Raul Miller wrote: On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close to failing to meet our quorum requirement. On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing: we want to know th

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, John H. Robinson, IV: > i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to > conduct business. > OK. Let's say we have a quorum of 90 and a supermajority of 2:1. 70 people are for the proposal, 30 against => the proposal wins. 70 people are for the proposal, 10 against, t

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > i may have misused/overloaded the term ballot, and used it when i should > have used measure. it is due to a lack of clear udnerstanding the > difference. Just in case this is important: A ballot is something which lists thin

Re: Another proposal.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > *shrug* I don't care about quorums :) > > We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met > if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quorum is not met, > the default option wins." Let's say quorum is 45.

Re: Another proposal.

John H. Robinson, IV wrote: Raul Miller wrote: That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying is bad. I don't think you understood my objection. Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met and therefore cause the option to win. This disco

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > you are assuming that only proponents of a ballot will bother to vote. I'm not assuming that only proponents of an option on a ballot will bother to vote. I'm not sure what "proponents of a ballot" means, so I can't say wheth

Re: Another proposal.

Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > John H. Robinson, IV: > > also, with the Condorcet + SSD election method, is the supermajority > > requirements really required? it does allow a vocal minority to block an > > action. > > No it doesn't. If a majority rank option A first, that option wins -- end >

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, John H. Robinson, IV: > also, with the Condorcet + SSD election method, is the supermajority > requirements really required? it does allow a vocal minority to block an > action. No it doesn't. If a majority rank option A first, that option wins -- end of vote. (Unless you use the Borda method

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > > On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close > > to failing to meet our quorum requirement. On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing: > > we want to know that a signific

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > > That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying > is bad. I don't think you understood my objection. > > Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met > and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere vot

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:14:41PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its > > goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of > > either convincing all bu

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > > On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close > to failing to meet our quorum requirement. let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing: we want to know that a significant portion of the electorate care enough to represent themselves. so would

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > >That would be bad. > > > >If you do it this way, there are circumstances where a vote against > >an option may cause that option to win (because without that vote the > >option wouldn't have met quorum). On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 02:21:05PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > I think y

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: Raul Miller wrote: On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close to failing to meet our quorum requirement. On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing: we want to know tha

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:34:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Still, I question the utility of a quorum requriment at all in a project > of Debian's size. There have been irregularities in our application of > the Constitution in the past (e.g., with Project Leaders' terms of > office), but

Re: Another proposal.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > *shrug* I don't care about quorums :) > > We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: "The quorum is met > if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quorum is not met, > the default option wins." Let's say quorum is 45.

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its > goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of > either convincing all but a fringe minority that your goals are better, > or of start

Re: Another proposal.

Hi, John H. Robinson, IV: > also, with the Condorcet + SSD election method, is the supermajority > requirements really required? it does allow a vocal minority to block an > action. No it doesn't. If a majority rank option A first, that option wins -- end of vote. (Unless you use the Borda method

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > > On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close > > to failing to meet our quorum requirement. On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing: > > we want to know that a signific

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:14:41PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its > > goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of > > either convincing all bu

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote: > > On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close > to failing to meet our quorum requirement. let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing: we want to know that a significant portion of the electorate care enough to represent themselves. so would

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:34:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Still, I question the utility of a quorum requriment at all in a project > of Debian's size. There have been irregularities in our application of > the Constitution in the past (e.g., with Project Leaders' terms of > office), but

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its > goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of > either convincing all but a fringe minority that your goals are better, > or of start

  1   2   >