Firstly, I mistakenly defined the strength of defeats in my last
definition, so I've changed rule (3) to match my implimentation.
Strength is now measured by how many votes prefer A over B. In the
previous definition I defined the strength of defeats as the difference
between how many votes pre
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:56:01AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> Firstly, I mistakenly defined the strength of defeats in my last
> definition, so I've changed rule (3) to match my implimentation.
> Strength is now measured by how many votes prefer A over B.
Ok. I've actually not taken the time
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 10:36:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Proof that A.6 draft is undemocratic.
> I'm ignoring your proof because you've left out something I consider to
> be significant out of your axioms. [see above.]
I'm not sure that's fair, since quorum doesn't come into play in the e
Notes: This is a revision of the Nov 24th draft of the A.6 rewrite
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00332.html),
incorporating the A.3 changes from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200210/msg00024.html
as well as some of the other points mentioned
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 10:36:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Proof that A.6 draft is undemocratic.
> > I'm ignoring your proof because you've left out something I consider to
> > be significant out of your axioms. [see above.]
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 02:10:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
I like it.
Some minor typos:
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:01:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes and tallies results
>are not be revealed during the voting period; after the vote the
^^
s/not be/not to be/
>
> 2. We
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:30:18PM +0100, Juan Cespedes wrote:
> Some minor typos:
Thank you [some of these aren't so minor].
Also, I omitted the [rather significant] sentence that lets you compare
defeats by the default option with defeats by other options.
So I'll be submitting another draft w
On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 13:30, Juan Cespedes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:01:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes and tallies results
> >are not be revealed during the voting period; after the vote the
> ^^
> s/not
Hi, some more comments, mostly about wording.
> A.3. Voting procedure
> 3. The vote taker (if there is one) or the voters (if voting is done
>by public pronouncement) may arrange for independent ballots
>to be held simultaneously, even (for example) using a single
>vo
> > A.3. Voting procedure
> > 3. The vote taker (if there is one) or the voters (if voting is done
> >by public pronouncement) may arrange for independent ballots
> >to be held simultaneously, even (for example) using a single
> >voting message.
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 a
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:12:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm critiquing the axiom, not the example. By his rules some elections
> with quorums do not have a democratic outcome.
That's not what's important: by his rules some elections that _meet_
quorum don't have a "democratic" outcome. The
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:12:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm critiquing the axiom, not the example. By his rules some elections
> > with quorums do not have a democratic outcome.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:40:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's not what's important: by his rules som
Firstly, I mistakenly defined the strength of defeats in my last
definition, so I've changed rule (3) to match my implimentation.
Strength is now measured by how many votes prefer A over B. In the
previous definition I defined the strength of defeats as the difference
between how many votes pre
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:56:01AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> Firstly, I mistakenly defined the strength of defeats in my last
> definition, so I've changed rule (3) to match my implimentation.
> Strength is now measured by how many votes prefer A over B.
Ok. I've actually not taken the time
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 10:36:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Proof that A.6 draft is undemocratic.
> I'm ignoring your proof because you've left out something I consider to
> be significant out of your axioms. [see above.]
I'm not sure that's fair, since quorum doesn't come into play in the e
Notes: This is a revision of the Nov 24th draft of the A.6 rewrite
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00332.html),
incorporating the A.3 changes from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200210/msg00024.html
as well as some of the other points mentioned
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 10:36:45AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Proof that A.6 draft is undemocratic.
> > I'm ignoring your proof because you've left out something I consider to
> > be significant out of your axioms. [see above.]
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 02:10:18AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
I like it.
Some minor typos:
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:01:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes and tallies results
>are not be revealed during the voting period; after the vote the
^^
s/not be/not to be/
>
> 2. We
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:30:18PM +0100, Juan Cespedes wrote:
> Some minor typos:
Thank you [some of these aren't so minor].
Also, I omitted the [rather significant] sentence that lets you compare
defeats by the default option with defeats by other options.
So I'll be submitting another draft w
On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 13:30, Juan Cespedes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:01:04PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes and tallies results
> >are not be revealed during the voting period; after the vote the
> ^^
> s/not
Hi, some more comments, mostly about wording.
> A.3. Voting procedure
> 3. The vote taker (if there is one) or the voters (if voting is done
>by public pronouncement) may arrange for independent ballots
>to be held simultaneously, even (for example) using a single
>vo
> > A.3. Voting procedure
> > 3. The vote taker (if there is one) or the voters (if voting is done
> >by public pronouncement) may arrange for independent ballots
> >to be held simultaneously, even (for example) using a single
> >voting message.
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 a
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:12:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I'm critiquing the axiom, not the example. By his rules some elections
> with quorums do not have a democratic outcome.
That's not what's important: by his rules some elections that _meet_
quorum don't have a "democratic" outcome. The
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:12:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm critiquing the axiom, not the example. By his rules some elections
> > with quorums do not have a democratic outcome.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:40:21AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's not what's important: by his rules som
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:44:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:12:48PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > I'm critiquing the axiom, not the example. By his rules some elections
> > > with quorums do not have a democratic outcome.
> On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:40:21AM +1000,
25 matches
Mail list logo
