On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:41PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'll be interested in seeing how you get rid of strategic voters, since
> from my POV that's a property of the method, not a deficiency.
My goal is much more modest than "getting rid of strategic voting"; it
may be impossible
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Giving a gypsy a gold coin helps.
(null pointer dereferencing metaphor)
Can you help me recover from the exception that was just thrown? :)
--
G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from history or,
De
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
> > strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
> > Cloneproof SSD is supposed to
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option
> A, and though I may not like further discussion, I like the other
> options even less than further discussion.
>
> Ranking options below furter discussio
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Actually deploying a strategy does mean your voting insincerely. By
> definition. Voting insincerely shouldn't be taken as an insult.
I take it you and Manoj have a difference of opinion on this point.
Or am I misunderstanding one (
[snip]
Ok, thanks!
--
G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do
Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senato
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:20:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and
> > brochures freely-licensed?
>
> AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I migh
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> > supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
> >
> > This pretty much ensures the defeat
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Is there *ever* a strategic advantage, then, to not ranking "further
> discussion" immediately behind your most-preferred-choice?
Assuming your true preference is (A->B->D->C) ([1243]) where D is the
default option and A, B, and C require a 3:1 majori
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
> > as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been
> > doing so for qui
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:56:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alternatively, maybe people could second the
> draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00148.html
Anthony didn't propose it as an amendment, but I guess he c
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 04:55:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (a) Because "support" isn't really what we're talking about here --
> we're worried not about whether bugs in glibc that only appear when using
> non-free software will get fixed (they will), but rather whether we'll
> allow our infra
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:18:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> > >
> > > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > > [ ] Change social contract, don't re
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a
> supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1.
Yes, each one individually. Not the options' common parts
interpretively taken together.
> Otherwise al
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:28:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The problem, as I see it, is that Branden's current proposal reads to
> some people like a "drop distribution of non-free, need 3:1 supermajority
> vote to reinstate that distribution" proposal to some people,
I've said over and over a
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:47:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is this an effort to wave aside
> basically everything I've said, or are you being more subtle?
One doesn't wave aside what you've said. One only waves aside what you can't
finish saying.
Out
i received a banner to do this since i enteres the
web as a 50,000,000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:30:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option A, and
>> though I may not like further discussion, I like the other options
>> even l
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
>> > supermajority
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:41PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I'll be interested in seeing how you get rid of strategic voters, since
> from my POV that's a property of the method, not a deficiency.
My goal is much more modest than "getting rid of strategic voting"; it
may be impossible
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Giving a gypsy a gold coin helps.
(null pointer dereferencing metaphor)
Can you help me recover from the exception that was just thrown? :)
--
G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from history or,
De
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
> > strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
> > Cloneproof SSD is supposed to
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option
> A, and though I may not like further discussion, I like the other
> options even less than further discussion.
>
> Ranking options below furter discussio
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Actually deploying a strategy does mean your voting insincerely. By
> definition. Voting insincerely shouldn't be taken as an insult.
I take it you and Manoj have a difference of opinion on this point.
Or am I misunderstanding one (
[snip]
Ok, thanks!
--
G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do
Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senato
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:20:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and
> > brochures freely-licensed?
>
> AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I migh
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> > supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
> >
> > This pretty much ensures the defeat
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
> > as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been
> > doing so for qui
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Is there *ever* a strategic advantage, then, to not ranking "further
> discussion" immediately behind your most-preferred-choice?
Assuming your true preference is (A->B->D->C) ([1243]) where D is the
default option and A, B, and C require a 3:1 majori
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:56:10PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alternatively, maybe people could second the
> draft at the bottom of Anthony Towns' message:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00148.html
Anthony didn't propose it as an amendment, but I guess he c
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 04:55:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> (a) Because "support" isn't really what we're talking about here --
> we're worried not about whether bugs in glibc that only appear when using
> non-free software will get fixed (they will), but rather whether we'll
> allow our infra
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:18:57PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote:
> > >
> > > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free
> > > [ ] Change social contract, don't re
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 02:47:40AM +, Dylan Thurston wrote:
> The Standard Resolution Procedure specifies that options requiring a
> supermajority need to defeat the default option by 3:1.
Yes, each one individually. Not the options' common parts
interpretively taken together.
> Otherwise al
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 10:28:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> The problem, as I see it, is that Branden's current proposal reads to
> some people like a "drop distribution of non-free, need 3:1 supermajority
> vote to reinstate that distribution" proposal to some people,
I've said over and over a
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:47:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is this an effort to wave aside
> basically everything I've said, or are you being more subtle?
One doesn't wave aside what you've said. One only waves aside what you can't
finish saying.
Out
i received a banner to do this since i enteres the
web as a 50,000,000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:30:14 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option A, and
>> though I may not like further discussion, I like the other options
>> even l
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
>> > supermajority
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
This pretty much ensures t
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:28:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
su
40 matches
Mail list logo
