Hi,
Andrew Pimlott:
> Empirically, many people look at their vote as a means for achieving
> the best outcome, not a statement of belief. (Eg, those who
> preferred Nader but voted for Gore.) Do you assume that there are
> no such people in Debian, or would you propose to exclude them?
>
Given
Hi,
I'm going to walk through these examples and apply my preferred algorithm
of "if an option wins but doesn't satisfy the supermajority requirement
against the default option, drop it from the ballot and repeat".
The ones I've deleted stay the same.
Two of the results you get make no sense to
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 09:23:27AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> I'm going to walk through these examples and apply my preferred algorithm
> of "if an option wins but doesn't satisfy the supermajority requirement
> against the default option, drop it from the ballot and repeat".
> > Z is the de
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> (Raul doesn't eliminate defaults by the default option, 40:35 is the next
... defeats by ...
> weakest defeat)
>
I seem to have overlooked that.
Frankly, I don't think that special treatment of the default option
is a good idea. We are already using supermajority rules, whic
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 03:13:59PM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> First, heres a definition of a rough proposal I've used in examples
> below, which I've called, for want of a better name, Considered CSSD
> (CCSSD). Its a clean up and patch of a similar earlier proposal.
I basically have a lot of
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:02:12PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Frankly, I don't think that special treatment of the default option
> is a good idea. We are already using supermajority rules, which gives the
> default option extra weight. Why would we want _another_ rule which does
> basically
Hi,
I'm going to walk through these examples and apply my preferred algorithm
of "if an option wins but doesn't satisfy the supermajority requirement
against the default option, drop it from the ballot and repeat".
The ones I've deleted stay the same.
Two of the results you get make no sense to
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 09:23:27AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> I'm going to walk through these examples and apply my preferred algorithm
> of "if an option wins but doesn't satisfy the supermajority requirement
> against the default option, drop it from the ballot and repeat".
> > Z is the de
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> (Raul doesn't eliminate defaults by the default option, 40:35 is the next
... defeats by ...
> weakest defeat)
>
I seem to have overlooked that.
Frankly, I don't think that special treatment of the default option
is a good idea. We are already using supermajority rules, whic
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 03:13:59PM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> First, heres a definition of a rough proposal I've used in examples
> below, which I've called, for want of a better name, Considered CSSD
> (CCSSD). Its a clean up and patch of a similar earlier proposal.
I basically have a lot of
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:02:12PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Frankly, I don't think that special treatment of the default option
> is a good idea. We are already using supermajority rules, which gives the
> default option extra weight. Why would we want _another_ rule which does
> basically
11 matches
Mail list logo
