On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:59:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:34:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:22:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > And Branden, i find that
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 23:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters will, even
> within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing default, vote
> conservatively.
Then we can say nothing besides "that is the will of the electorate."
> So,
I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
requirements, given my favorite ballot:
A: strike SC 5
B: trivial
C: strike SC 5 + trivial
D: further discussion
If my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I should
do this because A
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
> requirements, given my favorite ballot:
> A: strike SC 5
> B: trivial
> C: strike SC 5 + trivial
> D: further discussion
> If my true prefere
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I doubt this applies to the Debian electorate nearly as much as the
> general population. However, even so, that means (given):
>
> Option A: strike SC 5
> Option B: trivial, editorial change
> Option C: A + B
> Option D: Further Discussion
>
>
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:23:49AM -0500, Lukas Geyer wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, I am assuming the typical non-activist voter will think "Well, gosh,
> > all of these good, and look like at least a marginal improvement over
> > the status quo, but in case I'm wron
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 11:57:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Umm, by this logic shouldn't Option 2 have won in the
> disambiguation vote, rather than coming in last? Option 2, as Ian
> Jackson pointed out, was the least disruptive of the lot; but the
> voting actually went like so:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:38:38AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 23:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters will, even
> > within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing default, vote
> > conservatively.
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 01:27:52AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (Note that this has been discussed copiously in the lead up to the voting
> GR; and that we've had the GR on it, which has passed)
What's your point? It's been "discussed copiously" before, so it
shouldn't be discussed again? So wh
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 02:29:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> > > wouldn't if reask
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> > No, you're wrong. The mechanism for achieving large-scale archive
> > changes isn't presently formally defined at all. Informally, it
> > a
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of
Branden> voters will, even within a slate of options preferred
Branden> over the do-nothing default, vote conservatively.
Branden> I ground this on the
On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
requirements, given my favorite ballot:
A: strike SC 5
B: trivial
C: strike SC 5 + trivial
On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:24, Branden Robinson wrote:
However, even so, that means (given):
Option A: strike SC 5
Option B: trivial, editorial change
Option C: A + B
Option D: Further Discussion
we're going to get the 'activists' voting CABD and the insecure voting
B
On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
[b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture
That option is likely to beat almost any proposed change to the Social
Contract by a landslide -- *if people vote sincerely*.
But would it beat "Debian should retain support for the x86
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:24:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, they might vote BACD because this sorts the substantive options in
> increasing order of disruption to the Social Contract. It is irrational
> to rank A above C if you're trying to be "conservative" (but not so
> conservative
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> If my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, no you shouldn't, because you're increasingly likely to end up
> > with the default option winning,
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:29:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What's your point? It's been "discussed copiously" before, so it
> shouldn't be discussed again? So what? debian-legal had to field
> redundant questions about what's wrong with the GNU FDL over and over
> and over again
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:47:04 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
> requirements, given my favorite ballot:
> A: strike SC 5 B: trivial C: strike SC 5 + trivial D: further
> discussion
> If my true prefe
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 18:04:55 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>>> I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
>>> requirements, given my fav
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:14:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 11:57:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Umm, by this logic shouldn't Option 2 have won in the
>> disambiguation vote, rather than coming in last? Option 2, as Ian
>> Jackson pointed out, w
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:23:49AM -0500, Lukas Geyer wrote:
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > So, I am assuming the typical non-activist voter will think
>> > "Well, gosh, all of these good, and lo
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > No, you're wrong. The mechanism for achieving large-scale
hlekk kjrwuhrv iwkudh xkevzlxdqb mipys
-- vnszepkk -- rebipbigka -- hyrjlmhbmy --
Learn about how Vi.g.r.a works. So you can better understand, what Vi.a.g.r.a
can do for you. If you are
sensible about your health, reflect on what you can do for your sex-ual health,
to keep the
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:09:07PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > So my hypothesis is that our method of ballot construction may serve
> > to reward insincere voting, *even assuming the actual method of
> > tabulat
On Nov 1, 2003, at 18:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:04:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
No, it doesn't. My preferred option still has just as many votes over
the default option.
In other words, CD was your true preference. [Or, perhaps, CDAB.]
No, it isn't,
On Nov 1, 2003, at 19:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough
consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you
are effectively rejecting the possibility that that option could be a
valid solution to whatever we are voting
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:01:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:14:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I think that's a hasty conclusion. Let's recall how much time
> > passed between the first big flamewar on this subject and the time
> > of the
On Nov 1, 2003, at 19:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Is it? Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and
you are missing the whole point of a community of people finding
common cause to create a free operating system.
I realize this is mostly my fault, I should not of been so
On Nov 1, 2003, at 20:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I guess one function of this (sub-)thread is to try and spread the
meme that proposing irrelevant amendments that an original GR
proposer is a Bad Thing, and should
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:17:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> There's been a lot of verbiage on this subject.
>
> Here's what I think you're trying to say:
>
> If we have a substantial block of debian voters who want to vote
> "conservatively", we will tend towards making small amounts of progre
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:04:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >(Note that this has been discussed copiously in the lead up to the
> >voting
> >GR; and that we've had the GR on it, which has passed)
>
> I know. I was part of those discussion
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Is it? Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and
> you are missing the whole point of a community of people finding
> common cause to create a free operating system.
>
> Sure, if having your way win is w
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:21:18 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 19:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough
>> consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you
>> are effectively rejecting the pos
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:34:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough
> consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you
> are effectively rejecting the possibility that that option could be a
> valid solution to what
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:49:53PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Well if you're right then I believe the electorate gets exactly what
> it asks for--slow, steady improvement over the status quo.
>
> I.E. I believe the voting system works as desired--or at least as I
> desire it.
As I attempted to e
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:33:11 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 20:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> I guess one function of this (sub-)thread is to try and spread the
>>> mem
Hi,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >>A: strike SC 5
> >>B: trivial
> >>C: strike SC 5 + trivial
> >>D: further discussion
> Now, I realize that under A.6.3, B and A need to both independently get
> thrice the votes of the converse. So, wanting C above those two, I
> decide to give th
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> >[b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture
> >
> >That option is likely to beat almost any proposed change to the Social
> >Contract by a landslide -- *if pe
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:44:30 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> My thesis, as I unfortunately and apparently failed to make clear in
> the original post, is that, given that we view as desirable the
> practice of ranking one's ballot preferences sincerely, that there
> is a proced
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:49:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Is it? Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and you
>> are missing the whole point of a community of people finding common
>> cause to
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:46:49 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:04:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> >(Note that this has been discussed copiously in the lead up to the
>> >voting GR; and that we'v
On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah, but there is a paradox: Consensus on one of the options does
exist. The option just got dropped (failed n:1 requirements) due to
people wanting another option, too. That is, I think, a technical
How the hell would it get dropped if
On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
Personally, I have no intention of accepting wholly irrelevant
amendments to my proposed GR.
I have now come to agree with you: If we wind up with nonsense like the
current BR amendment + keep ix86, then our system is broken.
My current thin
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:59:04 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:49:53PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Well if you're right then I believe the electorate gets exactly
>> what it asks for--slow, steady improvement over the status quo.
>>
>> I.E. I believe t
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:55:42 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:34:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough
>> consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you
>> are effectively rej
On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:43, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
In general, though, I have to admit that I don't understand what the
problem
is. A.6.3 ranks your choice against the defaukt option, not against
anything
else. Thus, voting CDAB instead of CABD doesn't affect the chances of C
winning, it only
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> >
>> >[b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture
>> >
>> >That option is likel
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:15:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:48, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
You should read. Branden has been consistent in asserting that
there are antisocial elements who vote insincerely to defeat the
progressive chang4es [...]
Huh? So far as I can see, he has merely suggested there is a
possibility to g
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:38:41 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:43, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> In general, though, I have to admit that I don't understand what
>> the problem is. A.6.3 ranks your choice against the defaukt option,
>> not against anything e
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:31:45 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, but there is a paradox: Consensus on one of the options does
>>> exist. The option just got dropped (failed n:1 requirements) due
>>> to people wanting an
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:36:46 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> Personally, I have no intention of accepting wholly irrelevant
>> amendments to my proposed GR.
> I have now come to agree with you: If we wind up with nonsense
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:53:40 -0800, Benj Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they
> weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may
> not be case with the proposed GR, I don't claim to know) and went
> ahead anyway the
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:18:34 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters
> will, even within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing
> default, vote conservatively.
> I ground this on the observation that it's a sma
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 10:59:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:34:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 12:22:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:47:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > And Branden, i find that
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 23:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters will, even
> within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing default, vote
> conservatively.
Then we can say nothing besides "that is the will of the electorate."
> So,
I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
requirements, given my favorite ballot:
A: strike SC 5
B: trivial
C: strike SC 5 + trivial
D: further discussion
If my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I should
do this because A
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
> requirements, given my favorite ballot:
> A: strike SC 5
> B: trivial
> C: strike SC 5 + trivial
> D: further discussion
> If my true prefere
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I doubt this applies to the Debian electorate nearly as much as the
> general population. However, even so, that means (given):
>
> Option A: strike SC 5
> Option B: trivial, editorial change
> Option C: A + B
> Option D: Further Discussion
>
>
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:23:49AM -0500, Lukas Geyer wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, I am assuming the typical non-activist voter will think "Well, gosh,
> > all of these good, and look like at least a marginal improvement over
> > the status quo, but in case I'm wron
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 11:57:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Umm, by this logic shouldn't Option 2 have won in the
> disambiguation vote, rather than coming in last? Option 2, as Ian
> Jackson pointed out, was the least disruptive of the lot; but the
> voting actually went like so:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:38:38AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 23:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of voters will, even
> > within a slate of options preferred over the do-nothing default, vote
> > conservatively.
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 01:27:52AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (Note that this has been discussed copiously in the lead up to the voting
> GR; and that we've had the GR on it, which has passed)
What's your point? It's been "discussed copiously" before, so it
shouldn't be discussed again? So wh
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 02:29:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> > > wouldn't if reask
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > No, you're wrong. The mechanism for achieving large-scale archive
> > changes isn't presently formally defined at all. Informally, it
> > appe
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> I *am* making the assumption that a signficant number of
Branden> voters will, even within a slate of options preferred
Branden> over the do-nothing default, vote conservatively.
Branden> I ground this on the
On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
requirements, given my favorite ballot:
A: strike SC 5
B: trivial
C: strike SC 5 + trivial
D: further discussion
If m
On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:24, Branden Robinson wrote:
However, even so, that means (given):
Option A: strike SC 5
Option B: trivial, editorial change
Option C: A + B
Option D: Further Discussion
we're going to get the 'activists' voting CABD and the insecure voting
BCAD
On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
[b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture
That option is likely to beat almost any proposed change to the Social
Contract by a landslide -- *if people vote sincerely*.
But would it beat "Debian should retain support for the x86
arc
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:24:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, they might vote BACD because this sorts the substantive options in
> increasing order of disruption to the Social Contract. It is irrational
> to rank A above C if you're trying to be "conservative" (but not so
> conservative
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> If my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, no you shouldn't, because you're increasingly likely to end up
> > with the default option winning,
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:29:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What's your point? It's been "discussed copiously" before, so it
> shouldn't be discussed again? So what? debian-legal had to field
> redundant questions about what's wrong with the GNU FDL over and over
> and over again
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:47:04 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
> requirements, given my favorite ballot:
> A: strike SC 5 B: trivial C: strike SC 5 + trivial D: further
> discussion
> If my true prefer
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 18:04:55 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>>> I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
>>> requirements, given my fav
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:14:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 11:57:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Umm, by this logic shouldn't Option 2 have won in the
>> disambiguation vote, rather than coming in last? Option 2, as Ian
>> Jackson pointed out, w
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:23:49AM -0500, Lukas Geyer wrote:
>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > So, I am assuming the typical non-activist voter will think
>> > "Well, gosh, all of these good, and lo
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > No, you're wrong. The mechanism for achieving large-scale
hlekk kjrwuhrv iwkudh xkevzlxdqb mipys
-- vnszepkk -- rebipbigka -- hyrjlmhbmy --
Learn about how Vi.g.r.a works. So you can better understand, what Vi.a.g.r.a can do
for you. If you are
sensible about your health, reflect on what you can do for your sex-ual health, to
keep the
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:09:07PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > So my hypothesis is that our method of ballot construction may serve
> > to reward insincere voting, *even assuming the actual method of
> > tabulat
On Nov 1, 2003, at 18:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:04:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
No, it doesn't. My preferred option still has just as many votes over
the default option.
In other words, CD was your true preference. [Or, perhaps, CDAB.]
No, it isn't, as I exp
On Nov 1, 2003, at 19:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough
consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you
are effectively rejecting the possibility that that option could be a
valid solution to whatever we are voting fo
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:01:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:14:06 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I think that's a hasty conclusion. Let's recall how much time
> > passed between the first big flamewar on this subject and the time
> > of the
On Nov 1, 2003, at 19:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Is it? Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and
you are missing the whole point of a community of people finding
common cause to create a free operating system.
I realize this is mostly my fault, I should not of been so info
On Nov 1, 2003, at 20:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I guess one function of this (sub-)thread is to try and spread the
meme that proposing irrelevant amendments that an original GR
proposer is a Bad Thing, and should be
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:17:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> There's been a lot of verbiage on this subject.
>
> Here's what I think you're trying to say:
>
> If we have a substantial block of debian voters who want to vote
> "conservatively", we will tend towards making small amounts of progre
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:04:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >(Note that this has been discussed copiously in the lead up to the
> >voting
> >GR; and that we've had the GR on it, which has passed)
>
> I know. I was part of those discussion
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Is it? Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and
> you are missing the whole point of a community of people finding
> common cause to create a free operating system.
>
> Sure, if having your way win is w
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:21:18 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 19:34, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough
>> consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you
>> are effectively rejecting the pos
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:34:32PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> A supermajority requirement is a requirement for a rough
> consensus. By putting D ahead of the options you do not like, you
> are effectively rejecting the possibility that that option could be a
> valid solution to what
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:49:53PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Well if you're right then I believe the electorate gets exactly what
> it asks for--slow, steady improvement over the status quo.
>
> I.E. I believe the voting system works as desired--or at least as I
> desire it.
As I attempted to e
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:33:11 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 20:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:58:40 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> I guess one function of this (sub-)thread is to try and spread the
>>> mem
Hi,
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >>A: strike SC 5
> >>B: trivial
> >>C: strike SC 5 + trivial
> >>D: further discussion
> Now, I realize that under A.6.3, B and A need to both independently get
> thrice the votes of the converse. So, wanting C above those two, I
> decide to give th
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 15:36, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> >[b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture
> >
> >That option is likely to beat almost any proposed change to the Social
> >Contract by a landslide -- *if pe
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:44:30 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> My thesis, as I unfortunately and apparently failed to make clear in
> the original post, is that, given that we view as desirable the
> practice of ranking one's ballot preferences sincerely, that there
> is a proced
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:49:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Is it? Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and you
>> are missing the whole point of a community of people finding common
>> cause to
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:46:49 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:04:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> >(Note that this has been discussed copiously in the lead up to the
>> >voting GR; and that we'v
On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah, but there is a paradox: Consensus on one of the options does
exist. The option just got dropped (failed n:1 requirements) due to
people wanting another option, too. That is, I think, a technical
How the hell would it get dropped if people a
On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:09, Branden Robinson wrote:
Personally, I have no intention of accepting wholly irrelevant
amendments to my proposed GR.
I have now come to agree with you: If we wind up with nonsense like the
current BR amendment + keep ix86, then our system is broken.
My current thinking
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:59:04 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:49:53PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Well if you're right then I believe the electorate gets exactly
>> what it asks for--slow, steady improvement over the status quo.
>>
>> I.E. I believe t
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
