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
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 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 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 07:46:15PM +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 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
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 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
Ok, here's what I hope is my final draft of this proposed constitutional
amendment. I've added language reduce the options to the smith set
before falling back on condorcet.
I'd like to allow a day for people to poke holes in this one.
I'm looking for outright flaws, not style issues. If no one
I'm not really happy about it, but I'm not sure I can poke holes in it.
Your procedure for determining the Smith Set is dependent upon
computing the transitive closure of the pairwise victories (the
"beatpaths"). But the definition of the Smith Set doesn't depend on
beatpaths at all.
I have
On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 12:26:28AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Your procedure for determining the Smith Set is dependent upon
> computing the transitive closure of the pairwise victories (the
> "beatpaths"). But the definition of the Smith Set doesn't depend on
> beatpaths at all.
Drat, you'r
[couldn't sleep]
I've gone with Norman's advice, and just used the specification of
what a smith set is for that part of the vote tallying. I hope
there's no ambiguities in the way I've specified it.
Try poking holes in this one. If no problems are found, could
people sponsor this starting on
[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
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
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 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 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 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 07:46:15PM +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 opti
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 bu
Ok, here's what I hope is my final draft of this proposed constitutional
amendment. I've added language reduce the options to the smith set
before falling back on condorcet.
I'd like to allow a day for people to poke holes in this one.
I'm looking for outright flaws, not style issues. If no one
I'm not really happy about it, but I'm not sure I can poke holes in it.
Your procedure for determining the Smith Set is dependent upon
computing the transitive closure of the pairwise victories (the
"beatpaths"). But the definition of the Smith Set doesn't depend on
beatpaths at all.
I have y
24 matches
Mail list logo