On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:05:46AM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> I think it is better if the method described in the constitution is
> defined in functional terms, rather than in the form of an algorithm.
> Not only is that form of description briefer and easier to understand,
> but it allows the bu
Raul Miller wrote:
>Drats.
>
>I guess that means I should either change the name (pull out smith)
>or change the mechanism. Straw poll (mostly I'm interested in hearing
>what people who have sponsored the proposal think): should I go for the
>quick fix (change name from Smith/Condorcet to Condorc
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:05:46AM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> I think it is better if the method described in the constitution is
> defined in functional terms, rather than in the form of an algorithm.
> Not only is that form of description briefer and easier to understand,
> but it allows the b
Raul Miller wrote:
>Drats.
>
>I guess that means I should either change the name (pull out smith)
>or change the mechanism. Straw poll (mostly I'm interested in hearing
>what people who have sponsored the proposal think): should I go for the
>quick fix (change name from Smith/Condorcet to Condor
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:23:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 30 ABCXo
> 20 BCAXo
> 10 XBCAo
> 30 XCABo
[aside: that construct looks a lot like what we were talking about off-list]
Interesting, and it didn't even require supermajority, just five opti
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:46:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:23:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > > What about writing some kind of
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:23:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 30 ABCXo
> 20 BCAXo
> 10 XBCAo
> 30 XCABo
[aside: that construct looks a lot like what we were talking about off-list]
Interesting, and it didn't even require supermajority, just five opt
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:23:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > What about writing some kind of code that resolve the vote in some kind of
> > > easy to prove languag
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:23:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > What about writing some kind of code that resolve the vote in some kind of
> > easy to prove language, and then do some program property proofs on it ?
>
> I'm not sure
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> What about writing some kind of code that resolve the vote in some kind of
> easy to prove language, and then do some program property proofs on it ?
I'm not sure why this helped (because I didn't do it), but it did.
For something, X,
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 03:26:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 04:19:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [1] The current constitutional vote tallying mechanism is ambiguous about
> > what to do for circular ties
>
> ...which tend not to come up, haven't so far, and require
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:46:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:23:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > > What about writing some kind o
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:23:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > What about writing some kind of code that resolve the vote in some kind of
> > > easy to prove langua
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:23:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > What about writing some kind of code that resolve the vote in some kind of
> > easy to prove language, and then do some program property proofs on it ?
>
> I'm not sur
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> What about writing some kind of code that resolve the vote in some kind of
> easy to prove language, and then do some program property proofs on it ?
I'm not sure why this helped (because I didn't do it), but it did.
For something, X
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 03:26:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 04:19:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [1] The current constitutional vote tallying mechanism is ambiguous about
> > what to do for circular ties
>
> ...which tend not to come up, haven't so far, and requir
[I'm replying to a number of Anthony's points off-list. Looking at how
much I wrote here, that's probably a good thing. I'll try to back off
and let other people discuss for a while.]
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 03:26:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Once we've got the voting system fixed, we ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
I second this proposal.
manoj
- --- debian/constitution.txt Tue Sep 14 18:00:00 1999
+++ tmp/constitution.txtMon Dec 18 10:10:18 2000
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@
This does not apply to decisions which have only become gradually
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 04:19:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [1] The current constitutional vote tallying mechanism is ambiguous about
> what to do for circular ties
...which tend not to come up, haven't so far, and require three or more
options that are all fairly popular to be an issue.
> [2]
[I'm replying to a number of Anthony's points off-list. Looking at how
much I wrote here, that's probably a good thing. I'll try to back off
and let other people discuss for a while.]
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 03:26:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Once we've got the voting system fixed, we c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
I second this proposal.
manoj
- --- debian/constitution.txt Tue Sep 14 18:00:00 1999
+++ tmp/constitution.txtMon Dec 18 10:10:18 2000
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@
This does not apply to decisions which have only become gradually
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 04:19:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [1] The current constitutional vote tallying mechanism is ambiguous about
> what to do for circular ties
...which tend not to come up, haven't so far, and require three or more
options that are all fairly popular to be an issue.
> [2
For the past month, I (and Anthony) have been arguing, on debian-vote,
about voting mechanisms -- to the tune of around 100k of text. I'm
writing this message as a summary, so that it can be referred to in
debian-weekly-news.
That discussion loaded with mistakes, of various kinds -- a significant
For the past month, I (and Anthony) have been arguing, on debian-vote,
about voting mechanisms -- to the tune of around 100k of text. I'm
writing this message as a summary, so that it can be referred to in
debian-weekly-news.
That discussion loaded with mistakes, of various kinds -- a significan
24 matches
Mail list logo
