Well, no one has sponsored my proposal to amend the constitution.
And, no one has issued any other proposals to fix the ambiguities
of the constitution.
I presume that either:
[1] People got tired of reading Anthony's and my discussion on
debian-vote, and stopped paying attention.
[2] My propos
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:16:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The big question is: what should be done, to advance Manoj+Branden's
> proposals?
I think Manoj's and my proposals have both expired by now. A quick glance
at my archive of this list seems to indicate that the last time anyone
bother
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:35:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think Manoj's and my proposals have both expired by now. A quick glance
> at my archive of this list seems to indicate that the last time anyone
> bothered to discuss either of them was Nov. 19th.
Nah, Anthony and I were discu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Well, no one has sponsored my proposal to amend the constitution.
Raul> And, no one has issued any other proposals to fix the ambiguities
Raul> of the constitution.
Raul> The big question is:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:29:06AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Actually, since I had disconnected during the long debate that
> progressed here, there was a lot of material to cover, and
> digest. And I still think I would not be able to defend the method to
> someone uninitiated; I
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:16:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Well, no one has sponsored my proposal to amend the constitution.
> And, no one has issued any other proposals to fix the ambiguities
> of the constitution.
>
> I presume that either:
>
> [1] People got tired of reading Anthony's and
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 03:07:57PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> [4] You kept changing it and nobody knew what to actually second!!
That's fair.
> Send a big letter, 'THIS IS THE ONE TO SECOND!' or some such, with the
> proposals.
Well, at the moment, I'm pretty happy with the one I propose
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 01:07:32PM -0500, I wrote:
> The current mechanism can be made to ignore circular ties -- essentially,
> you have to use A.6(2..4) only when there's a tie among first-preference
> options (and A.6(6) when there's an all-around tie). [Also, to properly
> handle votes with m
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
Raul Miller wrote:
>Well, no one has sponsored my proposal to amend the constitution.
>And, no one has issued any other proposals to fix the ambiguities
>of the constitution.
I thought I should mention now that some members of Debian, together with a
few of us from the Election Methods (EM) list
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 03:41:21PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> ... we have formed a joint committee to develop a proposal, which we
> will probably present to Debian for internal discussion in about a
> month's time (I'm just guessing on the timeframe; we haven't discussed
> this).
This looks pr
> Again, please write to me if you'd like to join our committee.
I'd like to.
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. SIMPLE MAJORITIES SHOULD RESOLVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITY: The
I would be reluctant to vote for a proposal that allowed majorities to
decide ambiguity. First, I am concerned that it might be open to
abuse. Secondly, I believe that the policy making process should be
distinct from the pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 18 Dec 2000 10:29:06 -0600,
on Re: What next?,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> digest. And I still think I would not be able to defend the method to
> someone uninitiated; I need to go look for t
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
-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
[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
Raul Miller wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 03:41:21PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
>> ... we have formed a joint committee to develop a proposal, which we
>> will probably present to Debian for internal discussion in about a
>> month's time (I'm just guessing on the timeframe; we haven't discussed
Well, no one has sponsored my proposal to amend the constitution.
And, no one has issued any other proposals to fix the ambiguities
of the constitution.
I presume that either:
[1] People got tired of reading Anthony's and my discussion on
debian-vote, and stopped paying attention.
[2] My proposa
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:16:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The big question is: what should be done, to advance Manoj+Branden's
> proposals?
I think Manoj's and my proposals have both expired by now. A quick glance
at my archive of this list seems to indicate that the last time anyone
bothere
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:35:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think Manoj's and my proposals have both expired by now. A quick glance
> at my archive of this list seems to indicate that the last time anyone
> bothered to discuss either of them was Nov. 19th.
Nah, Anthony and I were discus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Well, no one has sponsored my proposal to amend the constitution.
Raul> And, no one has issued any other proposals to fix the ambiguities
Raul> of the constitution.
Raul> The big question is: w
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:29:06AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Actually, since I had disconnected during the long debate that
> progressed here, there was a lot of material to cover, and
> digest. And I still think I would not be able to defend the method to
> someone uninitiated; I n
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 10:16:13AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Well, no one has sponsored my proposal to amend the constitution.
> And, no one has issued any other proposals to fix the ambiguities
> of the constitution.
>
> I presume that either:
>
> [1] People got tired of reading Anthony's and
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 03:07:57PM -0500, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> [4] You kept changing it and nobody knew what to actually second!!
That's fair.
> Send a big letter, 'THIS IS THE ONE TO SECOND!' or some such, with the
> proposals.
Well, at the moment, I'm pretty happy with the one I proposed
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 01:07:32PM -0500, I wrote:
> The current mechanism can be made to ignore circular ties -- essentially,
> you have to use A.6(2..4) only when there's a tie among first-preference
> options (and A.6(6) when there's an all-around tie). [Also, to properly
> handle votes with mi
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
Raul Miller wrote:
>Well, no one has sponsored my proposal to amend the constitution.
>And, no one has issued any other proposals to fix the ambiguities
>of the constitution.
I thought I should mention now that some members of Debian, together with a
few of us from the Election Methods (EM) list,
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 03:41:21PM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> ... we have formed a joint committee to develop a proposal, which we
> will probably present to Debian for internal discussion in about a
> month's time (I'm just guessing on the timeframe; we haven't discussed
> this).
This looks pre
> Again, please write to me if you'd like to join our committee.
I'd like to.
Thanks,
--
Raul
1. SIMPLE MAJORITIES SHOULD RESOLVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITY: The
I would be reluctant to vote for a proposal that allowed majorities to
decide ambiguity. First, I am concerned that it might be open to
abuse. Secondly, I believe that the policy making process should be
distinct from the pro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 18 Dec 2000 10:29:06 -0600,
on Re: What next?,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> digest. And I still think I would not be able to defend the method to
> someone uninitiated; I need to go look for th
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]
-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
34 matches
Mail list logo
