On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 01:13:37PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Why do you believe it's meaningful to distinguish between "the default
> > option wins" and "the entire vote is thrown out"? When is status quo
> > != the default option?
>
> in this case, for the de
Hello,
I think that John's modification is a good thing.
Hereby I second the amendment quoted below.
Jochen
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> --- proposal-srivasta Fri May 16 09:42:59 2003
> +++ proposal-jaqque Mon May 19 11:43:13 2003
> @@ -1,139 +1,139 @
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD
vote tallying"):
> I am formally proposing that we adopt this resolution be
> adopted, and I am asking for seconds for this resolution; we need at
> least 5 other developers to second this for this to go anywher
On Wed, 21 May 2003 13:28:53 -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 06:59:51PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
>> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:05:47AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > If the "winning" option is discarded due to quorum requirements,
>> > then given t
On Wed, 21 May 2003 14:27:53 -0400, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 2) Would an amendment to (a) to the following effect be acceptable
>and
> clear up nomenclature issues:
> Replace A.6.2-4 in the proposed amendment with:
> 2. Procedural Definitions
> a. V(A,B): For any options A a
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2003 14:27:53 -0400, Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
2) Would an amendment to (a) to the following effect be acceptable
and
clear up nomenclature issues:
Replace A.6.2-4 in the proposed amendment with:
2. Procedural Defin
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> If you [Buddha Buck] meant to change the meaning of quorum, I must
> confess I disagree.
you, sir, are the one changing the meaning of of the word quorum. my
amendment restores the meaning of quorum with respect to the Debian
voting mechanism.
The Oxford English Di
Hi,
Raul Miller wrote:
> You are arguing, I imagine, that [strictly speaking], "casting a vote
> which prefers option A over all other options" when compared to "not
> casting a ballot at all" is not an example of "voting the candidate
> higher"?
IMHO, that is exactly what it is an example of
Si
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:21:45AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> you, sir, are the one changing the meaning of of the word quorum. my
> amendment restores the meaning of quorum with respect to the Debian
> voting mechanism.
False.
> The Oxford English Dictionary:
>
> quorum
> 1. Orig., ce
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > You are arguing, I imagine, that [strictly speaking], "casting a vote
> > which prefers option A over all other options" when compared to "not
> > casting a ballot at all" is not an example of "voting the candidate
> > higher"?
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 07:34:15PM +0200, Mat
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> Simple reasoning: "ranking all the options the same" has the same effect as
> "not voting at all" WRT the outcome of the vote. Absent reasons to the
> contrary, it therefore should also be considered equivalent WRT the
> Monotonicity Criterion, or violation thereof,
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:21:45AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > you, sir, are the one changing the meaning of of the word quorum. my
> > amendment restores the meaning of quorum with respect to the Debian
> > voting mechanism.
>
> False.
which part, that ``quorum''
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
with presence for the purposes of meeting quorum.
another example: DPL election, two candidates, R=45
450x DAB
45x ADB
Condorcet: D wins
Proposed: A wins
Amended: D wins
here we have a case where ten times the number of people think that both
candidates are so
Buddha Buck wrote:
> >
> >another example: DPL election, two candidates, R=45
> >
> >450x DAB
> >45x ADB
> >
> >Condorcet: D wins
> >Proposed: A wins
> >Amended: D wins
>
> You are going to have to walk me though this one. Here's what I see
> happening under Manoj's proposal:
>
> 45 voters p
Hello Raul,
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:57:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> "Hard to understand"? We'd require a certain level of voter approval
> before we'll consider an option -- options which don't achieve that
> can't win. How is this "hard to understand"?
The thing which is hard to understa
Hello Manoj,
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:15:14AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Right. Leads to a lot of soul searching -- I no longer know
> whether I am helping or hurting my candidate by expressing my true
> preference.
>
> I should not be put in this position.
I fully agree.
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:57:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > "Hard to understand"? We'd require a certain level of voter approval
> > before we'll consider an option -- options which don't achieve that
> > can't win. How is this "hard to understand"?
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 12:50:02AM +020
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:21:45AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > you, sir, are the one changing the meaning of of the word quorum. my
> > > amendment restores the meaning of quorum with respect to the Debian
> > > voting mechanism.
> >
> > False.
On Thu, May 22
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 01:00:58AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Hello,
This is off-topic for debian-devel -- we have a -vote list for discussion
of votes, please use it. Followups to -vote.
In,
> http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/comp/vote.html
you claim:
] Generalised Strategy
19 matches
Mail list logo
