On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:24:59PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> if the Default Option is something other that Further Discussion or
> Forget We Ever Had This Vote, then i cannot agree.
The Constitution defines the default option as either 'Further Discussion'
[decision votes] or 'None of t
Jochen Voss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 2. If fewer ballots are received than the required quorum for
> > the vote, the default option is declared the winner.
> This is a version of quorum I could happily live with.
provided
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 2. If fewer ballots are received than the required quorum for
> the vote, the default option is declared the winner.
This is a version of quorum I could happily live with.
> 3. If a majority of N:1 is requir
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:24:59PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> if the Default Option is something other that Further Discussion or
> Forget We Ever Had This Vote, then i cannot agree.
The Constitution defines the default option as either 'Further Discussion'
[decision votes] or 'None of t
Jochen Voss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 2. If fewer ballots are received than the required quorum for
> > the vote, the default option is declared the winner.
> This is a version of quorum I could happily live with.
provided
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 2. If fewer ballots are received than the required quorum for
> the vote, the default option is declared the winner.
This is a version of quorum I could happily live with.
> 3. If a majority of N:1 is requir
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:55:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 3. If a majority of N:1 is required for an option A, and V(A,D)
> > is less than or equal to N * V(D,A), then A is dropped from
> > consideration. If a simp
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 3. If a majority of N:1 is required for an option A, and V(A,D)
> is less than or equal to N * V(D,A), then A is dropped from
> consideration. If a simple majority is required for an option A,
> and V(A,D) is le
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:55:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 3. If a majority of N:1 is required for an option A, and V(A,D)
> > is less than or equal to N * V(D,A), then A is dropped from
> > consideration. If a simp
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 3. If a majority of N:1 is required for an option A, and V(A,D)
> is less than or equal to N * V(D,A), then A is dropped from
> consideration. If a simple majority is required for an option A,
> and V(A,D) is le
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:54:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:33:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I don't understand.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-26/msg00040.html,
> etc.
I've changed my thinking on that, as you may have otherw
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:33:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > No, voters propose General Resolutions and amendments thereto, not
> > > ballot options per se.
> > *cough*
> I don't understand.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-26/msg00040.html,
etc.
Cheers,
aj
--
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:25:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:59:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:30:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns:
> > > > For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
> > > I lik
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 03:54:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:33:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I don't understand.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-26/msg00040.html,
> etc.
I've changed my thinking on that, as you may have otherw
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:59:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:30:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Anthony Towns:
> > > For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
> > I like. One minor nit:
> > > 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options bei
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:06:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
> Consider 100 voters, a constitutional amendment, A, and a set of
> conscientious objectors.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:33:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > No, voters propose General Resolutions and amendments thereto, not
> > > ballot options per se.
> > *cough*
> I don't understand.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-26/msg00040.html,
etc.
Cheers,
aj
--
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:25:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:59:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:30:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Anthony Towns:
> > > > For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
> > > I lik
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:59:54AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:30:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Anthony Towns:
> > > For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
> > I like. One minor nit:
> > > 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options bei
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:06:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
> Consider 100 voters, a constitutional amendment, A, and a set of
> conscientious objectors.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 03:44:03PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Hmmm, so if I make a suggested amendment to the Debian Constitution
> (such as "Replace all instances of the word 'Concorde' in connection
> with the voting system with the word 'Condorcet'. Rationale: This was
> clearly a misspell
Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes, it does. See the flamewar about non-free on debian-devel. Giving
people their opportunity to explicitly express their preference for the
status quo (", damnit!") is a good thing, if someone can be bothered to
propose that as an amendment to the proposed GR, and if
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 03:44:03PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Hmmm, so if I make a suggested amendment to the Debian Constitution
> (such as "Replace all instances of the word 'Concorde' in connection
> with the voting system with the word 'Condorcet'. Rationale: This was
> clearly a misspell
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 06:36:09PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > > "RATIONALE": Voters should rank the options they prefer in the
> > > > order that they prefer them, ranking the default option higher
> > > > than any options they believe are unacceptable. If they believe
> >
Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes, it does. See the flamewar about non-free on debian-devel. Giving
people their opportunity to explicitly express their preference for the
status quo (", damnit!") is a good thing, if someone can be bothered to
propose that as an amendment to the proposed GR, and if
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> I think Anthony may be trying to leave that to the discretion of the
> person preparing the ballot (the Project Secretary).
> If so, I disagree with that. I think we should mandate that ballots
> must permit appication of the same rank to multiple options.
>
I agree.
> >
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 06:36:09PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > > "RATIONALE": Voters should rank the options they prefer in the
> > > > order that they prefer them, ranking the default option higher
> > > > than any options they believe are unacceptable. If they believe
> >
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:30:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Anthony Towns:
> > For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
> >
> I like. One minor nit:
>
> > 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
> > all options need be ranked.
>
> Giving th
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Here's my suggestion:
> >
> > We use the Condorcet voting method with Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential
> > Dropping, along with modifications to accomodate quorum and
> > supermajority requirements, described below. We determine
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> I think Anthony may be trying to leave that to the discretion of the
> person preparing the ballot (the Project Secretary).
> If so, I disagree with that. I think we should mandate that ballots
> must permit appication of the same rank to multiple options.
>
I agree.
> >
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 08:30:54AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Anthony Towns:
> > For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
> >
> I like. One minor nit:
>
> > 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
> > all options need be ranked.
>
> Giving th
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:45:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Here's my suggestion:
> >
> > We use the Condorcet voting method with Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential
> > Dropping, along with modifications to accomodate quorum and
> > supermajority requirements, described below. We determine
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
>
I like. One minor nit:
> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
> all options need be ranked.
Giving the same rank to more than one option is permitted.
> "RATIONALE": Voter
For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
--
A.6 Vote Counting
1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
all options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered
pref
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
>
I like. One minor nit:
> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
> all options need be ranked.
Giving the same rank to more than one option is permitted.
> "RATIONALE": Voter
For concreteness, here's what I think we should be doing:
--
A.6 Vote Counting
1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not
all options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered
pref
> > 2. We drop the weakest defeats from the Schwartz set until there
> >are no more defeats in the Schwartz set:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:41:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> IMO this "Schwarz set" jargon just comes out of the blue here and is
> likely going to be sort of jarring
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> As before, if there are any flaws in my thinking or in my presentation,
[...]
> __
>
> A.6 Vote Counting
>
> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being vote
> > 2. We drop the weakest defeats from the Schwartz set until there
> >are no more defeats in the Schwartz set:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:41:31PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> IMO this "Schwarz set" jargon just comes out of the blue here and is
> likely going to be sort of jarring
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> As before, if there are any flaws in my thinking or in my presentation,
[...]
> __
>
> A.6 Vote Counting
>
> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being vote
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:06:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm going to ignore the fact you meant wrt quorums not supermajorities.
*blush* Thanks.
>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
I'm going to ignore the fact you meant wrt quorums not supermajorities.
Consider 100 voters, a constitutional amendment, A, and a set of
conscientious objecto
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:06:01AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm going to ignore the fact you meant wrt quorums not supermajorities.
*blush* Thanks.
>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:58:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> It's probably worth comparing the strategies possible with this draft [...]
I'm going to ignore the fact you meant wrt quorums not supermajorities.
Consider 100 voters, a constitutional amendment, A, and a set of
conscientious objecto
44 matches
Mail list logo
