On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 07:51:14AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:00:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Quoting Constitution section 5.2:
>
> Quoting the same section :-)
>
> 2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes
>vacant
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 07:51:14AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:00:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Quoting Constitution section 5.2:
>
> Quoting the same section :-)
>
> 2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes
>vacant
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:00:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Quoting Constitution section 5.2:
Quoting the same section :-)
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes
vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
8. The Project Leader serves f
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:54:59AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Branden Robinson:
> > In the case of elections for an office, doesn't this give the incumbent
> > an unfair advantage if he is also on the ballot as a candidate?
> >
> Personally, for votes where there simply must be some sort of
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:00:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Quoting Constitution section 5.2:
Quoting the same section :-)
2. The election begins nine weeks before the leadership post becomes
vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
8. The Project Leader serves f
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:54:59AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Branden Robinson:
> > In the case of elections for an office, doesn't this give the incumbent
> > an unfair advantage if he is also on the ballot as a candidate?
> >
> Personally, for votes where there simply must be some sort of
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 09:45:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In the case of elections for an office, doesn't this give the incumbent
> an unfair advantage if he is also on the ballot as a candidate?
I think the Constitution allows for offices to be vacant (at least,
it does so for the Proje
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 09:45:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In the case of elections for an office, doesn't this give the incumbent
> an unfair advantage if he is also on the ballot as a candidate?
I think the Constitution allows for offices to be vacant (at least,
it does so for the Proje
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> > I'd rather run the algorithm with the full set of votes first, and _then_,
> > if the default option wins, have a separate rule on what to do next.
>
> Nope: see the first vote listed above. You _don't_ want to declare a
> result when the majority of developers would prefer
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:54:59AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Another alternative might have been to have the default option win if
> > > it's _ever_ a member of the Scwartz set, rather than if it's a member
> > > of the Schwartz set after the sequential dropping phases are complete.
> Th
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> > Yes, it must. The default option is "further discussion" in most GRs, and
> > a "none of the above" that equates to further discussion in DPL elections.
> > If the default option wins, we have another vote, where proposers of that
> > option can either argue their case be
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> > I'd rather run the algorithm with the full set of votes first, and _then_,
> > if the default option wins, have a separate rule on what to do next.
>
> Nope: see the first vote listed above. You _don't_ want to declare a
> result when the majority of developers would prefer
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:54:59AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Another alternative might have been to have the default option win if
> > > it's _ever_ a member of the Scwartz set, rather than if it's a member
> > > of the Schwartz set after the sequential dropping phases are complete.
> Th
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> > Yes, it must. The default option is "further discussion" in most GRs, and
> > a "none of the above" that equates to further discussion in DPL elections.
> > If the default option wins, we have another vote, where proposers of that
> > option can either argue their case be
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:28:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:58:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Must a supermajority-required option directly defeat the default option
> > by this margin?
>
> Yes, it must. The default option is "further discussion" in most GR
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:28:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:58:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Must a supermajority-required option directly defeat the default option
> > by this margin?
>
> Yes, it must. The default option is "further discussion" in most GR
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:58:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Must a supermajority-required option directly defeat the default option
> by this margin? What happens if the supermajority-required option only
> transitively defeats the default option? How do we numerically define
> the margin
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:58:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Must a supermajority-required option directly defeat the default option
> by this margin? What happens if the supermajority-required option only
> transitively defeats the default option? How do we numerically define
> the margin
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
> >defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
> >quorum requirement or the option is eliminated.
> ^^
>is
> Raul Miller:
> >The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
> >the defeat. Where two pairs of options have the same number
> >of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
> >favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.
On Thu
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:13:14PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Definition: A "ballot" consists of a ranking A>B>C>D>... of options
> submitted by a voter. It defines a total ordering of options for a
> particular voter (i.e., for any pair of options A and B, we can claim
> that a particular vo
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > > Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> > > defeats nothing), then x is NOT in the set?
> > Yes.
> However, it's not true for the general case. Imagine you have two
> options and they're tied. Then, both options would be in the schwartz
> set
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:39:39PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> > defeats nothing), then x is NOT in the set?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:11:04PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Yes.
Be careful here.
It should be true for th
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> I think we need to come up with better, understandable, language.
>
Right.
> Is it accurate to say that if x is in the Set, and y>>x, then y is in
> the set?
>
Yes.
> Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> defeats nothing), then x is NOT in t
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
> >defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
> >quorum requirement or the option is eliminated.
> ^^
>is
> Raul Miller:
> >The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
> >the defeat. Where two pairs of options have the same number
> >of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
> >favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.
On Thu
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:13:14PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Definition: A "ballot" consists of a ranking A>B>C>D>... of options
> submitted by a voter. It defines a total ordering of options for a
> particular voter (i.e., for any pair of options A and B, we can claim
> that a particular vo
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > > Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> > > defeats nothing), then x is NOT in the set?
> > Yes.
> However, it's not true for the general case. Imagine you have two
> options and they're tied. Then, both options would be in the schwartz
> set
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:39:39PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> > defeats nothing), then x is NOT in the set?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:11:04PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Yes.
Be careful here.
It should be true for th
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> I think we need to come up with better, understandable, language.
>
Right.
> Is it accurate to say that if x is in the Set, and y>>x, then y is in
> the set?
>
Yes.
> Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> defeats nothing), then x is NOT in t
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
So who did come up with the mistake "Schultz", and did they eat too many
peanuts? ;-)
Anthony Towns:
The correct restatement is something more like:
{ x | forall y: y >> x --> x >>> y }
Or, in understandable language: The Schwartz set is the innermost
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
So who did come up with the mistake "Schultz", and did they eat too many
peanuts? ;-)
Anthony Towns:
The correct restatement is something more like:
{ x | forall y: y >> x --> x >>> y }
Or, in understandable language: The Schwartz set is the innermost unbeaten
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
> the defeat. Where two pairs of options have the same number
> of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
> favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.
>
W
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:16:40AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
> >defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
> >quorum require
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
>defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
>quorum requirement or the option is eliminated.
^^
is t
Hi,
So who did come up with the mistake "Schultz", and did they eat too many
peanuts? ;-)
Anthony Towns:
> The correct restatement is something more like:
>
> { x | forall y: y >> x --> x >>> y }
>
Or, in understandable language: The Schwartz set is the innermost unbeaten
set, or the sma
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
> the defeat. Where two pairs of options have the same number
> of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
> favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.
>
W
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:16:40AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
> >defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
> >quorum require
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
>defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
>quorum requirement or the option is eliminated.
^^
is t
Hi,
So who did come up with the mistake "Schultz", and did they eat too many
peanuts? ;-)
Anthony Towns:
> The correct restatement is something more like:
>
> { x | forall y: y >> x --> x >>> y }
>
Or, in understandable language: The Schwartz set is the innermost unbeaten
set, or the sma
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:13:14PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> The Schultz Set = { A | A>>>A }
> Note: Because A==A, it isn't the case that A>>A,
This is clever, but wrong. Consider an election with people voting:
30 x ABCD
40 x ACDB
50 x ADBC
A wins unanimously and is t
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:13:14PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> The Schultz Set = { A | A>>>A }
> Note: Because A==A, it isn't the case that A>>A,
This is clever, but wrong. Consider an election with people voting:
30 x ABCD
40 x ACDB
50 x ADBC
A wins unanimously and is t
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:42:37PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> AFAICT, your version only gives one level of transitivity, which does
> not necessarily suffice.
I have retracted it.
> An explicitly iterative version would have to read along the lines of
>
> Definition: An option F is in the
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:24:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:54:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if option G
> > defeats option F, or if there is another option H which defeats G, AND
> > option F de
Raul Miller wrote:
This is not a full draft. In this post, I'm only including
text for replacing A.6 of the constitution. I wanted to
also rewrite the changes to A.3, but I've got to run some
errands tonight and I'm not going to have time to write up
a full draft.
Please let me know of any fla
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:42:37PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> AFAICT, your version only gives one level of transitivity, which does
> not necessarily suffice.
I have retracted it.
> An explicitly iterative version would have to read along the lines of
>
> Definition: An option F is in the
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:24:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:54:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if option G
> > defeats option F, or if there is another option H which defeats G, AND
> > option F de
Raul Miller wrote:
This is not a full draft. In this post, I'm only including
text for replacing A.6 of the constitution. I wanted to
also rewrite the changes to A.3, but I've got to run some
errands tonight and I'm not going to have time to write up
a full draft.
Please let me know of any flaw
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
> > Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if
> > option G defeats option F or if there is some other option
> > H where option H is in t
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
> > Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if
> > option G defeats option F or if there is some other option
> > H where option H is in t
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:54:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if
> > option G defeats option F or if there is some other option
> > H where option H is in the beat path of G AND option F is in
> >
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:54:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if
> > option G defeats option F or if there is some other option
> > H where option H is in the beat path of G AND option F is in
> >
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is not a full draft. In this post, I'm only including
> text for replacing A.6 of the constitution. I wanted to
> also rewrite the changes to A.3, but I've got to run some
> errands tonight and I'm not going to have time to write
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is not a full draft. In this post, I'm only including
> text for replacing A.6 of the constitution. I wanted to
> also rewrite the changes to A.3, but I've got to run some
> errands tonight and I'm not going to have time to write
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Please let me know of any flaws in the following partial draft:
These are mostly fairly minor.
> A.6 Vote Counting
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter. Any options unr
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Please let me know of any flaws in the following partial draft:
These are mostly fairly minor.
> A.6 Vote Counting
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter. Any options unr
56 matches
Mail list logo
