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,
> > It's not fair to base an argument on an axiom which is known to be false.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:45:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether the axiom is false as written: it's trivial
> to salvage its intended meaning (by either dropping quorum requirements,
> or quali
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 07:57:09AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I am uncomfortable this for the axiom that the option ranked last must
> lose. It's just too arbitrary. For example, consider also a ballot with
> only one option (not that our current system allows this). The resulting
> statement i
Raul Miller wrote:
It's not fair to base an argument on an axiom which is known to be false.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:45:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It doesn't matter whether the axiom is false as written: it's trivial
to salvage its intended meaning (by either dropping quoru
Focusing on just A.6 again, in this draft:
(*) Weakest defeats can now be eliminated: before a defeat of the default
option is eliminated, all options which fail to meet their supermajority
requirements are deleted.
(*) When artificial supermajority defeats are eliminated the corresponding
option
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:03:33AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> Consistancy Criteria - "If election X and election Y have identical
> votes and supermajority requirements, and election X has a default
> option of A, and election Y has a default option of B, and B is the
> winner of election X, t
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:03:33AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> In any case, later on I'll define another criteria in my opinion an
> election system should follow, and will attempt to prove that CCSSD (and
> newly defined DPCCSSD) does follow and the Dec 7 draft does not. This
> criteria 'Consi
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:13:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> "RATIONALE": Options which voters rank above the default option are
> options they find acceptable. Options ranked below the default
> option are unacceptable options. Supermajority options require
> some approxima
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:20:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[what are the underlying things we're trying to achieve]:
> Here's a start:
>
> (0) The default option should be to leave the vote unresolved;
> if people wish to actively preserve the status quo, they should
>
A few poorly-formed thoughts:
It seems we aren't even able to pick a system to let us vote, let
alone actually debating and voting on issues.
Maybe the answer isn't hyper-democracy, where everyone who maintains a
package gets to decide on every issue.
Maybe we ought to recognize that the power
Hello
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:20:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Can we possibly stop coming up with full blown voting systems while
> we still don't have a firm idea of the underlying things we're trying
> to achieve?
Good idea :-)
> (1) We want a voting system that handles quorums.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Can you give reasons for (1a) and (1b)? As far as I understood the
> debate, the reason for a quorum is to avoid "stealth-decision-making",
> i.e. to assert that enough developers notice the election and take part
> in it. Because of
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 03:18:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > Can you give reasons for (1a) and (1b)? As far as I understood the
> > debate, the reason for a quorum is to avoid "stealth-decision-making",
> > i.e. to assert that enou
Title: Lotto als Weihnachtsgeschenk
Jetzt
zu Weihnachten bei Lotto Gewinnen!
Wär das was für Sie ?
Sie erhalten diese Email, weil Sie sich bei einem unserer
Gewinnspiele angemeldet haben.
> > Or: the addition of 22 people voting against A caused A to win. In my
> > opinion, this is very wrong.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Why ?
I answered this in the message you were responding to, immediately
following the paragraph you quoted.
> You are trying
Hello,
I set up a web page with Debian voting system resources.
My page tries to cover everything which is important for
the planned rewrite of our voting system. I hope that
the page provides a good starting point for anybody who
wants to join the voting system discussion.
The address of my web
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> Anthony Towns:
> > In particular, dropping the options that don't meet their supermajority
> > requirement before applying CpSSD meets the above criteria better than
> > strengthening the default versus supermajority-option defeat: it avoids
> > scaling transitive comparisons an
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > (1) We want a voting system that handles quorums.
> > (1a) Quorums are handled on a per-option basis.
> > (1b) Electors are counted toward the quorum if they vote, and if they
> > rank the option above the default
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 23:51, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I can't give a reason for (1); quorums in real meetings are used to
> make sure enough people are able to participate in decisions for them
> to be meaningful. Since we do everything over mailing lists and have a
> couple of weeks for every issu
> > It's not fair to base an argument on an axiom which is known to be false.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:45:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether the axiom is false as written: it's trivial
> to salvage its intended meaning (by either dropping quorum requirements,
> or quali
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 07:57:09AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I am uncomfortable this for the axiom that the option ranked last must
> lose. It's just too arbitrary. For example, consider also a ballot with
> only one option (not that our current system allows this). The resulting
> statement i
Raul Miller wrote:
It's not fair to base an argument on an axiom which is known to be false.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:45:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It doesn't matter whether the axiom is false as written: it's trivial
to salvage its intended meaning (by either dropping quorum r
Focusing on just A.6 again, in this draft:
(*) Weakest defeats can now be eliminated: before a defeat of the default
option is eliminated, all options which fail to meet their supermajority
requirements are deleted.
(*) When artificial supermajority defeats are eliminated the corresponding
option
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:03:33AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> In any case, later on I'll define another criteria in my opinion an
> election system should follow, and will attempt to prove that CCSSD (and
> newly defined DPCCSSD) does follow and the Dec 7 draft does not. This
> criteria 'Consi
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:03:33AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> Consistancy Criteria - "If election X and election Y have identical
> votes and supermajority requirements, and election X has a default
> option of A, and election Y has a default option of B, and B is the
> winner of election X, t
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:13:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> "RATIONALE": Options which voters rank above the default option are
> options they find acceptable. Options ranked below the default
> option are unacceptable options. Supermajority options require
> some approxima
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:20:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[what are the underlying things we're trying to achieve]:
> Here's a start:
>
> (0) The default option should be to leave the vote unresolved;
> if people wish to actively preserve the status quo, they should
>
A few poorly-formed thoughts:
It seems we aren't even able to pick a system to let us vote, let
alone actually debating and voting on issues.
Maybe the answer isn't hyper-democracy, where everyone who maintains a
package gets to decide on every issue.
Maybe we ought to recognize that the power
Hello
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:20:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Can we possibly stop coming up with full blown voting systems while
> we still don't have a firm idea of the underlying things we're trying
> to achieve?
Good idea :-)
> (1) We want a voting system that handles quorums.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Can you give reasons for (1a) and (1b)? As far as I understood the
> debate, the reason for a quorum is to avoid "stealth-decision-making",
> i.e. to assert that enough developers notice the election and take part
> in it. Because of
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 03:18:16PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > Can you give reasons for (1a) and (1b)? As far as I understood the
> > debate, the reason for a quorum is to avoid "stealth-decision-making",
> > i.e. to assert that enou
Title: Lotto als Weihnachtsgeschenk
Jetzt
zu Weihnachten bei Lotto Gewinnen!
Wär das was für Sie ?
Sie erhalten diese Email, weil Sie sich bei einem unserer
Gewinnspiele angemeldet haben.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
> > Or: the addition of 22 people voting against A caused A to win. In my
> > opinion, this is very wrong.
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:38:46PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Why ?
I answered this in the message you were responding to, immediately
following the paragraph you quoted.
> You are trying
Hello,
I set up a web page with Debian voting system resources.
My page tries to cover everything which is important for
the planned rewrite of our voting system. I hope that
the page provides a good starting point for anybody who
wants to join the voting system discussion.
The address of my web
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> Anthony Towns:
> > In particular, dropping the options that don't meet their supermajority
> > requirement before applying CpSSD meets the above criteria better than
> > strengthening the default versus supermajority-option defeat: it avoids
> > scaling transitive comparisons an
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > (1) We want a voting system that handles quorums.
> > (1a) Quorums are handled on a per-option basis.
> > (1b) Electors are counted toward the quorum if they vote, and if they
> > rank the option above the default
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 23:51, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I can't give a reason for (1); quorums in real meetings are used to
> make sure enough people are able to participate in decisions for them
> to be meaningful. Since we do everything over mailing lists and have a
> couple of weeks for every issu
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:51:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It's irrelevant, we don't have votes without quorum/supermajority
> requirement.
Sorry, I didn't know that :-(
> I think the above is a counterexample to your idea:
Which idea? A counterexample to per-vote (and not pre-option)
quoru
38 matches
Mail list logo
