I can personally vouch for the fact that RMS can be very difficult. He
takes social awkwardness to new heights. He’s remarkably stubborn in
technical matters even when outside his domain of expertise and
completely wrong. He is not a fun house guest. His manners as a dinner
guest are atrocious. He
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The traits that make RMS appear awkward are the same that made him
> create the GNU project and the FSF, and without RMS being the way he
> is Debian would not exist.
Yes!
RMS is one stubborn guy.
Fifty years ago a laserprinter didn't work right because of some
software is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:56:45AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> Short and simple:
>
> TEXT OF OPTION 5
>
>
> Debian refuses to participate in and denounces the witch-hunt against Richard
> Stallman, the Free Software Foundation, and
I certainly did not mean to disparage the efforts of the people
working on the Debian printing software, who have really raised the
bar. It's great that printers usually "just work", that they're
automatically sniffed off the net, etc. Every time I print a page I
remember the bad old days and am th
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> There are 2 ways the FD option has an effect on the result.
> The first option is the quorum requirement. For a GR the quorum is
> 3*Q, which is around 47 for this vote. 3*Q people need to put the
> option above FD to meet the quorum, or the option is dropped.
> But the re
What you say is all correct, although I suppose people might be able
to get at least a rough poll of voter preferences if they actually
care. Assuming people don't know enough details about others'
preferences to vote strategically is basically security by obscurity
so I wouldn't want to rely upon
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 at 11:57, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > A possible solution is to drop the majority requirement
> > and have a quorum on the number of people that vote ...
>
> A quorum on the number of people who vote means that a vote aga
Hey Adrian,
> When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
> there are plenty of votes like
> 1---
>
> It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
> and that their ballot was wrongly filled due to a
> lack of understanding how our voting system works.
That's really intere
er-in-cycle-means-FD before the election is held,
presumably based on some set of reasonable criteria.
--Barak A. Pearlmutter
such an embarrassing press release.
--Barak A. Pearlmutter
The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of breed. But
there's an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out.
If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7
and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any
reason for someone to
Bernd Zeimetz write:
> Then don't say that.
> We have a defined method of voting, and if people don't like the results:
> there are procedures to change the voting method, the constitution and other
> things. After that you could even start a new GR. Complaining about the
> voting system because
Sam Hartman writes:
> For me though, even there, notice that we'd be choosing between options
> that the voters considered acceptable.
> Because of that, I am not bothered by the cycle.
If the decision doesn't really matter but a non-FD option must be
chosen (like a hungry group picking a restaura
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 16:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think we need voting reform around how the amendment process works and
> managing discussion time ...
> ...
> Preferences can be of different strengths.
>
> Which is to say that the gaps between preferences might be relatively
> weak.
Sam,
Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of
perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to
not use the full power of the ballot in ways that do seem a bit
counterintuitive.
Have a look for yo
Bernd, sometimes the devil is in the details, and that's certainly the
case with voting systems.
> Why should I rank options if there is only a limited number of
> options I care about, and the others are just equally bad
> choices imho?
I feel like we're sort of belaboring a point.
If someone v
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 16:57, Sam Hartman wrote:
> That's a big jump, and I don't think I agree.
> At least not when you phrase it that way.
> Why should my preference matter less just because it's weaker? It's
> still my preference and I'm attached to it very much:-)
There are two ways to appro
In the discussion of the "voting secrecy" resolution, people seem to
have assumed that it is impossible for a voting system to be
simultaneously secure, tamper-proof, have secret ballots, and also be
end-to-end publicly verifiable meaning transparent verification of the
final tally, with voters abl
18 matches
Mail list logo
