endment, followed by a single
Y/N/F ballot?
So what you are saying is that you feel that if in the first of two
ballots, I voted ABFC, and B was determined to be the winner of the
ballot, then I should vote either of FNY or FYN on the final ballot?
If the first ballot was:
A. Grant Buddh
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
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
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
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
> > > de
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
> >
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
>pack
> 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 u
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
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
> 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 w
> 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 stren
UFNqyU+NCgCfUh3X
> lNSYBbm9vZ3jcf5uyW8lD6Q=
> =+1f6
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Buddha Buck
> 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> --
>
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-technic
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
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 thresh
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
rs 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,
Er, I hit "send" by accident, please wait for my complete reply before
replying
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rs 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,
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 th
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 th
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 upo
endment, followed by a single
Y/N/F ballot?
So what you are saying is that you feel that if in the first of two
ballots, I voted ABFC, and B was determined to be the winner of the
ballot, then I should vote either of FNY or FYN on the final ballot?
If the first ballot was:
A. Grant Buddh
101 - 141 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
