On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Perhaps you can propose some language that you think would unambiguously
> capture my position? I not only think the current language is unambiguous,
> I think the interpretation of "supersede" that has been tendered by the
> previous secretary is suffi
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> Oh gee, so the US is using Condorcet now?
You know that was not the point of my last message. Condorcet is orthogonal to
the issue. A condorcet vote is just a full run off of options against one and
other conducted via a ranking. The presence of "further discuss
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> You know that was not the point of my last message. Condorcet is orthogonal
> to the issue. A condorcet vote is just a full run off of options against one
> and other conducted via a ranking. The presence of "further discussion"
> effectively provides a "we should do this
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 08:12:54AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> Condorcet is orthogonal to the issue.
It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
an exploit of FPTP.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 06:34:41PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
> have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
> see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
> for this one.
>
- "Steve Langasek" wrote:
> It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
> an exploit of FPTP.
The point of the super majority was to "engrave the social contract in stone".
From the beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort
the sh
Ean Schuessler wrote:
The point of the super majority was to "engrave the social contract in stone". From the
beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort the shape of the
organization and we wanted a safeguard against the system being gamed by a commercial organizatio
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:55:02PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
> So, can't this be fixed by just changing the algorithm from "drop all
> options which don't pass majority requirements, then determine the
> winner" to "determine the winner, then check whether the winner passes
> majority requireme
Hallo,
actually, the discussion surrounding supermajorities
in Condorcet goes back to 2000. See e.g.:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/11/msg00156.html
Between 2000 and 2002, this issue was discussed
off-list resp. at the Debian-EM Joint Committee
mailing list. See also section 7 of my p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With the resignation of our project Secretary, under section 7.2 of the
Debian Constitution, as Chairman of the Debian Technical Committee, I
now serve as the Acting Secretary.
Thank you to those of you who have shown your support over the past few
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:39:33PM -0700, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
>
>- - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>41b0a520-c6c1-4e7b-8c49-74ee85faf242
>[ 6 ] Choice 1: Reaffirm the Social Contract
>[ 5 ] Choice 2: Allow Lenny to release with proprietary firm
Hello Bdale,
Thanks a lot for this mail. I had been planning to write a mail asking for
a standpoint on the vote, but I'm glad I waited long enough for this to
arrive first.
On Monday 22 December 2008, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> It is clear that there are flaws with the way the current b
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 00:56 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
Hi Frans!
> That is not the only problem.
I agree, but I didn't think a CFV preamble was the right place to try
and discuss this in detail. Happy to have further discussion about it
in debian-vote.
> > However, after thinking long and hard a
Dear Steve and Bdale,
Given that the current status of the current "lenny firmware" vote is that
it will go forward, I would appreciate if the DPL and/or the Project
Secretary could rule on the following issue.
In the discussion about the vote various people have argued that a vote
for "furthe
(Restricting to d-vote.)
Thank you for your quick reply.
On Tuesday 23 December 2008, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> But note that even if the super-majority issue causes some choices to
> have a low priority of winning, we the project at large can still learn
> very interesting things by studying the Co
Hello,
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> - the Project Secretary is the guardian of the constitution
This precise statement makes your request void.
> and thus the correct role to rule on consequences of previous votes;
Our Secretary is the *guardian* of the constitution, not the one
Sorry for the late reply, but I've been so frustrated with things over the
past week that I decided to take a break and see how things worked out
first.
On Monday 15 December 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Frans Pop [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:09:28 +0100]:
> > Because any votes below FD do not count t
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:00:37AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> I've decided to ask the DPL and project secretary to rule on this issue
> based on the following considerations:
> - the Project Secretary is the guardian of the constitution and thus the
> correct role to rule on consequences of previ
18 matches
Mail list logo