Raul Miller wrote:
This is not a full draft. In this post, I'm only including
text for replacing A.6 of the constitution. I wanted to
also rewrite the changes to A.3, but I've got to run some
errands tonight and I'm not going to have time to write up
a full draft.
Please let me know of any fla
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
So who did come up with the mistake "Schultz", and did they eat too many
peanuts? ;-)
Anthony Towns:
The correct restatement is something more like:
{ x | forall y: y >> x --> x >>> y }
Or, in understandable language: The Schwartz set is the innermost
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:06:20AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
So for example, the clause, in most drafts, that first eliminated
options that were defeated by the default option, was a direct
invitation to insincere strategic voting. It would encourag
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close
to failing to meet our quorum requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing:
we want to know th
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying
is bad. I don't think you understood my objection.
Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
and therefore cause the option to win. This disc
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
John H. Robinson, IV:
i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to
conduct business.
[Matthias's comments rearranged...]
Sorry, but I don't like that. With a quorum, the people against a proposal
need to actively solicit support for t
having X>Q votes causes
the vote to be binding.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 03:50:10PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
I agree with John.
Can you explain what he's saying in a meaningful fashion? [It looks to me
like he's contradicting himself, but apparently you have a self-consistent
w
Raul Miller wrote:
Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
[1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly
simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any other argument
for
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
[2a] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn't meet supermajority.
Default option (Further Discussion) wins by default. New election to
be held after appropriate discussion period.
[2b] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn&#
Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes, it does. See the flamewar about non-free on debian-devel. Giving
people their opportunity to explicitly express their preference for the
status quo (", damnit!") is a good thing, if someone can be bothered to
propose that as an amendment to the proposed GR, and if
Raul Miller wrote:
Once that definition is made to my satisfaction, I like this option, or
one of these two variants:
[2a] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn't meet supermajority.
Default option (Further Discussion) wins by default. New election to
be held after appropriate discuss
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:39:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions
May (1952) shows that majority rule is the only positively
responsive voting rule that satisfies anonymity (all voters are
trea
Jochen Voss wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
I agree with this. But doesn't the same argument apply
to at least [5]?
Very possibly. (I'm out of town at the moment, and don't remember
exactly what [5] was). But I had other issues w
Please forgive my late reply. I'm on vacation, and haven't had access
to email since Friday. I should bow out of this discussion until I am
back from vacation and have more reliable email access.
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:29:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sorry, I don't buy this.
Ok.
I'm wondering if other people agree. [I wish Buddha wasn't
on vacation, this was his example.]
Sorry... I'm back, but my computer at home is having some problems (old
power su
Sam Hartman wrote:
Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice?
Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with
no amendments.
Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of
more discussion?
I think that, under the propo
Martin Schulze wrote (publically to Moshe Zadka):
If you can't trust Manoj, who else can you trust in this project?
And do you really believe that people want you as DPL when you are
apparently unable to compress an IRC log to the relevant "offensive"
messages, but send a 300 lines IRC logfile
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
And why do you think this should be allowed?
Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
reasonable understanding of debian politics.
That's true of some of our users too. There wo
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:35:15 +0100,
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I believe the method for choosing the hash that allows one to
> identify one's vote is flawed. Since all components of the string
> to be fed to md5sum are chosen by the secretary or kno
Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:57:13PM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
I don't believe that it's acceptable for an otherwise beaten option
to win due the the otherwise winning option being discarded due
to a quorum requirement, as John suggests might happen.
Under the propo
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. Proc
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
If it were impossible to rank options equally, then the combination of a
global quorum and an an elimination of unacceptable option (options to
which the default is preferred by a majority) would have essentially the
same effect as a per-option quorum.
This is easy to see. Every ballot would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:24:59PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Imagine a vote along the lines of:
100 ballots of the form:
[1] Red,[ ] Blue,[ ] Default
100 ballots of the form:
[1] Red,[ ] Blue,[1] Default
25 ballots of the form:
[ ] Red,[1
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
could the proponents of this amendment please explain what problem
it attempts to solve, with real life examples?
The main problem is that the existing voting system as described in the
Debian Constitution
Sam Hartman wrote:
"John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would
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 ensur
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 contrac
Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:21:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
(It is not part of debian, we were told in the past. Opponents of the
suggested GR seem to forget that and talk of things like removing from
debian, or phasing out from debian.) What's your suggested plan for
Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
At this point, with 563 ballots resulting in 491 votes from
482 developers, "Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free" has
carried the day. "Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1
majority needed]" failed to even win simple majority (more
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Good for you. But admit that some people disagree, at least.
Perhaps next time the subject of the CFV could make no comment on the
proposal at all. Call it "SC changes", rather than "SC editorial
changes". The secretary's opinion is irrelevant to the project so please
lea
A few things first:
1. I am not a Debian Developer, so I can not formally propose a GR or a
foundational document amendment. I have, however, had a long-time
involvement in the project, and have assisted in project-related
activities, such as developing the current standard resolution proces
e
> new procedure.
>
> This proposal would fix ambiguity #2 and #4, which were summarized in my
> 12/13 debian-vote message. This proposal does not attempt to address
> the other two ambiguities mentioned in that message.
>
> While we're amending the constitution, I'd
== 3
Step 6: Total rows and find largest, reduce table.
The totals are shown above, and the largest is 3. No items are
eliminated.
It appears that the computed "Smith Set" is {A,B,C,D}, whereas the real
Smith Set is {A}.
Did I make a mistake?
--
Buddha Buck
Raul Miller wrote:
This is not a full draft. In this post, I'm only including
text for replacing A.6 of the constitution. I wanted to
also rewrite the changes to A.3, but I've got to run some
errands tonight and I'm not going to have time to write up
a full draft.
Please let me know of any flaw
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
So who did come up with the mistake "Schultz", and did they eat too many
peanuts? ;-)
Anthony Towns:
The correct restatement is something more like:
{ x | forall y: y >> x --> x >>> y }
Or, in understandable language: The Schwartz set is the innermost unbeaten
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:06:20AM +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
So for example, the clause, in most drafts, that first eliminated
options that were defeated by the default option, was a direct
invitation to insincere strategic voting. It would encourage
Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close
to failing to meet our quorum requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing:
we want to know tha
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying
is bad. I don't think you understood my objection.
Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
and therefore cause the option to win. This disco
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
John H. Robinson, IV:
i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to
conduct business.
[Matthias's comments rearranged...]
Sorry, but I don't like that. With a quorum, the people against a proposal
need to actively solicit support for the
having X>Q votes causes
the vote to be binding.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 03:50:10PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
I agree with John.
Can you explain what he's saying in a meaningful fashion? [It looks to me
like he's contradicting himself, but apparently you have a self-consistent
way of
Raul Miller wrote:
Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
[1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly
simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any other argument
for
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
[2a] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn't meet supermajority.
Default option (Further Discussion) wins by default. New election to
be held after appropriate discussion period.
[2b] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn&#
Branden Robinson wrote:
Yes, it does. See the flamewar about non-free on debian-devel. Giving
people their opportunity to explicitly express their preference for the
status quo (", damnit!") is a good thing, if someone can be bothered to
propose that as an amendment to the proposed GR, and if
Raul Miller wrote:
Once that definition is made to my satisfaction, I like this option, or
one of these two variants:
[2a] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn't meet supermajority.
Default option (Further Discussion) wins by default. New election to
be held after appropriate discussi
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:39:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions
May (1952) shows that majority rule is the only positively
responsive voting rule that satisfies anonymity (all voters are
treated equa
Jochen Voss wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
I agree with this. But doesn't the same argument apply
to at least [5]?
Very possibly. (I'm out of town at the moment, and don't remember
exactly what [5] was). But I had other issues w
Please forgive my late reply. I'm on vacation, and haven't had access
to email since Friday. I should bow out of this discussion until I am
back from vacation and have more reliable email access.
Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:29:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sorry, I don't buy this.
Ok.
I'm wondering if other people agree. [I wish Buddha wasn't
on vacation, this was his example.]
Sorry... I'm back, but my computer at home is having some problems (old
power sup
Sam Hartman wrote:
Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice?
Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with
no amendments.
Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of
more discussion?
I think that, under the propos
Martin Schulze wrote (publically to Moshe Zadka):
If you can't trust Manoj, who else can you trust in this project?
And do you really believe that people want you as DPL when you are
apparently unable to compress an IRC log to the relevant "offensive"
messages, but send a 300 lines IRC logfile in
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 02:18:45PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
And why do you think this should be allowed?
Because they are a part of the debian community, and probably have a
reasonable understanding of debian politics.
That's true of some of our users too. There would be
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:35:15 +0100,
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I believe the method for choosing the hash that allows one to
> identify one's vote is flawed. Since all components of the string
> to be fed to md5sum are chosen by the secretary or known
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
could the proponents of this amendment please explain what problem
it attempts to solve, with real life examples?
The main problem is that the existing voting system as described in the
Debian Constitution is p
Sam Hartman wrote:
"John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have
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
Michael Banck wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:21:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
(It is not part of debian, we were told in the past. Opponents of the
suggested GR seem to forget that and talk of things like removing from
debian, or phasing out from debian.) What's your suggested plan for
I do
Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Hi,
At this point, with 563 ballots resulting in 491 votes from
482 developers, "Choice 2: Re-affirm support for non-free" has
carried the day. "Choice 1: Cease active support of non-free [3:1
majority needed]" failed to even win simple majority (more pe
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Good for you. But admit that some people disagree, at least.
Perhaps next time the subject of the CFV could make no comment on the
proposal at all. Call it "SC changes", rather than "SC editorial
changes". The secretary's opinion is irrelevant to the project so please
leave
A few things first:
1. I am not a Debian Developer, so I can not formally propose a GR or a
foundational document amendment. I have, however, had a long-time
involvement in the project, and have assisted in project-related
activities, such as developing the current standard resolution process
Raul Miller wrote:
Scripsit Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Or do you just want him to restate his opinion that the new social
contract forbids some interpretations which were ok under the old version?
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 07:11:47PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
If would be nice if he would re
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:11:29 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 09:06:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:52:20 +0200, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Regardless of what person is in charge, I think this person should
> >
es not amend the DSC) requires only a majority, how will the
vote counting and determination of the results of the ballots be done?
I hope to receive a reply to these questions soon.
Thank you,
Buddha Buck
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 12:24:17AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > 1. John Goetzen recently made a proposed General Resolution, to which
> > Anthony Townes suggested an amendment. Both the original proposal and
> > the amendment have had various developers po
ble. I hardly think that this
amendment would be a suitable "compromise" between "Do Nothing", "Keep
Talking" and Anthony Towns' alternative.
>
>
> Hamish
> --
> Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
least you know where you are with Microsoft."
> "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
> http://www.debian.org
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
y have not been officially recognised.
Could both Manoj and Branden formally send their amendments to
debian-vote for official recognition.
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends
At 01:49 PM 8/23/00 -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
I just assumed the proposal originator decided it wasn't going to
pass anyway and let's just spare the project the agony of going
through it. Just speculation on my part. Seemed like a good
decision if that was the case.
My interpretation w
At 09:42 AM 9/25/00 -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 24, John Goerzen wrote:
> "Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the
> > acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will
> > determine
At 10:45 AM 9/25/00 -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
OOPS - I intended to send this to the list, but it went to gecko only,
"Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and
> familiarize themselves with the issue again.
At 02:28 PM 9/27/00 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The problem is:
>
> (a) A group of developers don't think the social contract can
> legally (according to the constitution) be modified
> (b) A group of developers think modification of the social contract
> should
At 11:34 AM 10/2/00 +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
Well, because you have no use for most of the stuff in non-free, it don't mean
that other people have not need of it.
Even if the people needing it are just a few one.
That said, maybe we could make a survey or something such, to see what
packages a
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 10:02:46AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > I would say, without such a survey taking place, that for each package
> > in non-free, there is at least one person who:
> > * has stated agreement with the DSC and DFSG
> > * uses the package, or
ballots, which one gets voted on first?
Do we vote on the second if the first is accepted? What if they -both-
win?
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos
At 09:40 AM 10/10/00 -0700, Darren O. Benham wrote:
What would you like to see?
If I were a developer (is that a version of "I am not a developer, but..."
which was derided a while ago?)...
I'd love to see something like:
---
The main proposal
At 03:15 PM 10/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
WRT the resolution proposing the removal of non-free, the following
irregularities have occured with the process.
1. The Secretary has made a decision by fiat stating that a 3:1
supermajority is required for its passage, despite contradictory
language in th
D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
> Hi,
> >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Buddha> Traditionally, the Chair is also supposed to maintain at
> Buddha> least the appearance of impartiality. The Chair does not
> Buddha> speak for or against a motion, nor
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength
At 08:35 AM 11/9/00 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>"Peter" == Peter Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
>>
>> 4.1. Powers
>>
>> Together, the Developers may:
>> 2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 major
> Hi,
> >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Buddha> Proposed Rule 5.2 says that developers can change certain "Foundation
> Buddha> Documents" with a 3:1 majority. The first "Foundation Document"
n is clear about such things in the case of a GR, where
only a majority is required. How does it work when two of the ballot
options require a supermajority to pass?
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength
4UeUFNqyU+NCgCfUh3X
> lNSYBbm9vZ3jcf5uyW8lD6Q=
> =+1f6
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
> Hi,
> >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Buddha> How about placing the DSC/DFSG in Rule 2, rather than in Rule 5.2?
>
> Buddha> For a hand-diff, how about something like:
>
> Buddha> --
> Buddha>
At 08:26 AM 11/10/00 -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 04:17:07PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote:
>
> "BB" => Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> How about this modification?
[.. 2:1 majority required for all non-technical documents ..]
lurality to win (note:
I'm not even sure if "majority" or "plurality" are appropriate
descriptions of the victory condition in Condorcet-based schemes). The
system is balanced.
But if one of the choices explicitly requires a 3:1 supermajority to work, I
don't
is what was intended. This simply fixes it.
If I find time this week, I'd be willing to write something up, but if
I propose it, I gotta have six seconds, not five (not being a Debian
Developer and all).
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as
At 01:44 AM 11-29-2000 +1000, you wrote:
Why not simply define the terms as they are used by the people who care
about these things, and then clearly express the procedure by which ties
should be dealt with, rather than defining them out of existance?
A.6(2) An option A is said to Domin
At 10:52 AM 11-28-2000 -0800, you wrote:
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So, then, the procedure will be:
1) Amend the Constitution to fix up the voting procedure, especially when
supermajorities are needed.
2) Vote to decide what the threshhold will be for amendments
Giving a quick read-through of Appendix A, I see several problems:
1) Every resolution that has amendments is supposed to have two votes:
A.3.1) A vote to decide which amendments to apply, including "Further
Discussion"; and A.3.2) A vote to accept or reject (or keep discussing) the
final form
ng to be 100% "fair" to all voters. The
question remains, however: How do we determine "fairness" to evaluate
different methods?
>
> That's not in and of itself a bad thing, but it does lead to a lot
> of talk.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
pers could
probably be able to sit down, code in their favorite language, and get all
get the same answers.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:28:44AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Whether one criteria is better than another is of course a matter of
> opinion.
Agreed. Still, consensus is possible
Er, I hit "send" by accident, please wait for my complete reply before
replying
pers could
probably be able to sit down, code in their favorite language, and get all
get the same answers.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:28:44AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Whether one criteria is better than another is of course a matter of
> opinion.
Agreed. Still, consensus is possible
Twice now, when composing a reply to Raul in the "Condorcet Voting" thread,
I've hit C-E to move to the end of the line, and Eudora has interpreted
that as "Send Immediately", and sent incomplete replies Sorry about that.
The last reply actually has most of the "meat" of what I was going t
arge number of possible
criterion. Not much detail is given into the
advantages/disadvantages, however.
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
At 02:23 PM 11-30-2000 -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[third pass]
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 02:00:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Surely you agree that a minority of people being able to subvert the
> resolution procedure to get what they want instead of what the majority
> want is a bad thing?
I
is also debatable.
How about this Supermajority Election proceedure:
1) Find a winner using some method that meets both the Smith and
Condorcet Criteria (exact method still under debate).
2) If the winner has a supermajority requirement, compare the winner
with the &
A would be the victor in any of the methods I mentioned,
simply because it is an undefeated option. Even after supermajority
scaling.
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
