Hi,
After thinking about the whole supermajority stuff a bit, I think we need
to get back to what exactly we want.
I'd say that a single vote is meant to decide between a mutually exclusive
set of options. This means, to me, that each option's supermajority or
quorum requirements should be consid
Hi,
After thinking about the whole supermajority stuff a bit, I think we need
to get back to what exactly we want.
I'd say that a single vote is meant to decide between a mutually exclusive
set of options. This means, to me, that each option's supermajority or
quorum requirements should be consid
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:18:41PM +, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> Suppose a package breaks horribly, and a developer submits a bug report
> with a proposed fix A. The package's maintainer says she won't implement
> A, and proposes fix B. The submitter doesn't like B, and the question
> ends up b
Anthony Towns wrote:
>There are two issues here. One is to work out direction most people
>want to go in. The other is to make sure we don't make fundamental
>changes to ourselves with signficant dissent.
What about other cases where a supermajority is required -- eg, the
technical committee overr
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:18:41PM +, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
> Suppose a package breaks horribly, and a developer submits a bug report
> with a proposed fix A. The package's maintainer says she won't implement
> A, and proposes fix B. The submitter doesn't like B, and the question
> ends up b
Anthony Towns wrote:
>There are two issues here. One is to work out direction most people
>want to go in. The other is to make sure we don't make fundamental
>changes to ourselves with signficant dissent.
What about other cases where a supermajority is required -- eg, the
technical committee overr
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:59:22PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Maybe what we really need in mixed-supermajority votes is to make
> explicit which options support which other options. To illustrate
> the need for this, consider this vote, with results identical to
> yours:
>A - rename Tech
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:08:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Again, I'm not inferring it, I'm assuming it: that 90:10 people are happy
> to remove non-free, and that 60:40 people would rather remove non-free than
> handwave about it. If it weren't the case -- if, say, only 60:40 people were
> h
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:32:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:26:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:24:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:4
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:59:22PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Maybe what we really need in mixed-supermajority votes is to make
> explicit which options support which other options. To illustrate
> the need for this, consider this vote, with results identical to
> yours:
>A - rename Tech
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:01:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is an informal request for discussion about how to handle quorum
> and supermajority requirements.
I just got a chance to catch up on the discussion. I will give a
suggested solution, but first I would like to make a point that I
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:08:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Again, I'm not inferring it, I'm assuming it: that 90:10 people are happy
> to remove non-free, and that 60:40 people would rather remove non-free than
> handwave about it. If it weren't the case -- if, say, only 60:40 people were
> h
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:26:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:24:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > What do you think of the idea o
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:24:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> > > supermajority and default sw
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> > supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
> > supermajority, until the res
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:32:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:26:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:24:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:4
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:01:32AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > The issues are utterly separate. Just because people mildly prefer one
> > direction over another doesn't mean they're actually unhappy with that
> > other direction.
> I've been trying to understand this. Are you concluding th
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > I don't know, and frankly I don't like that kind of rule because it will
> > make a controversial vote [otherwise the result wouldn't change in the
> > first place] even more controversial.
>
> Please give an example?
>
The one we've been talking about should be sufficient f
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:01:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is an informal request for discussion about how to handle quorum
> and supermajority requirements.
I just got a chance to catch up on the discussion. I will give a
suggested solution, but first I would like to make a point that I
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:26:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:24:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > What do you think of the idea o
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:24:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> > > supermajority and default sw
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> > supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
> > supermajority, until the res
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 08:01:32AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > The issues are utterly separate. Just because people mildly prefer one
> > direction over another doesn't mean they're actually unhappy with that
> > other direction.
> I've been trying to understand this. Are you concluding th
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > I don't know, and frankly I don't like that kind of rule because it will
> > make a controversial vote [otherwise the result wouldn't change in the
> > first place] even more controversial.
>
> Please give an example?
>
The one we've been talking about should be sufficient f
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:58:27AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:19:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:56:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > If you have:
> > > A - remove non-free (2:1 supermajority required, say)
> > > B - handwave ab
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
> supermajority, until the result stops changing?
Do you mean:
A = supermajority 2:1 over D
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:58:27AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:19:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:56:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > If you have:
> > > A - remove non-free (2:1 supermajority required, say)
> > > B - handwave ab
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
> supermajority, until the result stops changing?
Do you mean:
A = supermajority 2:1 over D
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Will it always?
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 03:13:51PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Yes. Unless there's a tie and the person with the casting vote chooses
> differently each time.
I shouldn't have dismissed quite so casually.
I'm
> > What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> > supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
> > supermajority, until the result stops changing?
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Will it always?
Yes. Unless there'
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
> supermajority, until the result stops changing?
>
Will it always? Does that method still conform to the same criteria
Condorcet+CSSD does?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:58:27AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Nononononono. Please, not this again.
>
> There are two issues here. One is to work out direction most people want
> to go in. The other is to make sure we don't make fundamental changes
> to ourselves with signficant dissent.
There
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:19:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:56:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Does anyone see any significant strategies for inconsistency with this
> > > kind of mechanism?
> > It has the problem that it's much easier for a non-supermajority op
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Will it always?
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 03:13:51PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Yes. Unless there's a tie and the person with the casting vote chooses
> differently each time.
I shouldn't have dismissed quite so casually.
I'm
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:56:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Does anyone see any significant strategies for inconsistency with this
> > kind of mechanism?
>
> It has the problem that it's much easier for a non-supermajority option to
> win.
As opposed to the 17 Nov draft which in some cases
> > What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> > supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
> > supermajority, until the result stops changing?
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Will it always?
Yes. Unless there'
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
> supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
> supermajority, until the result stops changing?
>
Will it always? Does that method still conform to the same criteria
Condorcet+CSSD does?
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:01:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> So.. how does this sound:
Horrendously complicated was my first thought...
> Group options according to their supermajority requirements -- all
> options with the same supermajority requirement go in the same group.
>
> Use CpSSD to
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:58:27AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Nononononono. Please, not this again.
>
> There are two issues here. One is to work out direction most people want
> to go in. The other is to make sure we don't make fundamental changes
> to ourselves with signficant dissent.
There
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:19:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:56:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Does anyone see any significant strategies for inconsistency with this
> > > kind of mechanism?
> > It has the problem that it's much easier for a non-supermajority op
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:56:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Does anyone see any significant strategies for inconsistency with this
> > kind of mechanism?
>
> It has the problem that it's much easier for a non-supermajority option to
> win.
As opposed to the 17 Nov draft which in some cases
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:01:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> So.. how does this sound:
Horrendously complicated was my first thought...
> Group options according to their supermajority requirements -- all
> options with the same supermajority requirement go in the same group.
>
> Use CpSSD to
42 matches
Mail list logo
