Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:33:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always opinion-neutral, under every defintion. Trivial counter-example: it's not under mine. (Quorum is a small group of people that are necessary to make decisions; normally, they just have to be present, in this case they have to support the decision. If you don't like the word, that's fine. If you don't like the semantics, don't argue over definitions) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nathanael Raul Miller wrote: Nathanael No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always Nathanael opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing Nathanael up to oppose something always count toward quorum. Nathanael That's why Manoj's system is not a quorum system; it Nathanael only counts people coming to vote *for* something, not Nathanael people coming to vote that it's unacceptable. This is Nathanael why I said that nobody here really seems to want a Nathanael quorum system. Nathanael Quorum is about number of people showing up for Nathanael *discussion*, not *approving*. I think I'm willing to agree with you here that quorum is not a great name for what we have in Manoj's proposal. And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother. But whatever it's called, the discussion has convinced me at least that it seems to be a good idea, especially including how it interacts with the default option. There may be a better idea, but you have not yet presented one. And personally I don't think disagreement over whether quorum is a reasonable name for what Manoj's proposing is a good reason to prefer the default option to his proposal. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:33:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always opinion-neutral, under every defintion. Trivial counter-example: it's not under mine. (Quorum is a small group of people that are necessary to make decisions; normally, they just have to be present, in this case they have to support the decision. If you don't like the word, that's fine. If you don't like the semantics, don't argue over definitions) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nathanael Raul Miller wrote: Nathanael No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always Nathanael opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing Nathanael up to oppose something always count toward quorum. Nathanael That's why Manoj's system is not a quorum system; it Nathanael only counts people coming to vote *for* something, not Nathanael people coming to vote that it's unacceptable. This is Nathanael why I said that nobody here really seems to want a Nathanael quorum system. Nathanael Quorum is about number of people showing up for Nathanael *discussion*, not *approving*. I think I'm willing to agree with you here that quorum is not a great name for what we have in Manoj's proposal. And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother. But whatever it's called, the discussion has convinced me at least that it seems to be a good idea, especially including how it interacts with the default option. There may be a better idea, but you have not yet presented one. And personally I don't think disagreement over whether quorum is a reasonable name for what Manoj's proposing is a good reason to prefer the default option to his proposal.
Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
Sam Hartman wrote: I think I'm willing to agree with you here that quorum is not a great name for what we have in Manoj's proposal. i also got hung up on the use of the word ``quorum''. at first, i saw the word quorum, and i saw that that was not at all what was going on. i assumed that the people initially drafting the system meant quorum, not some ``buy-in'' thing. so i crafted an amendment that restored the meaning of quorum to quorum. it also brought us closer to a Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD method of tallying. after pondering, i came up with another idea tht gives us a pure Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD, provides with applicable buy-in, and supports supermajorities. please see http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200305/msg00203.html Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -john
Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
Hi,
Sam Hartman wrote:
And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized
what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a
proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother.
Approvals.
I think that word works well; we already have established that ranking an
option WRT the default option is equivalent to checking (or not) that option
on an approval ballot.
There's not much difference between adding a sentence which states that the
word quorum, as used in the proposal / the constitution, is not used with
its commonly-accepted meaning, and defining our usage of the word
approvals.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.
Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John after pondering, i came up with another idea tht gives us a John pure Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD, provides with applicable John buy-in, and supports supermajorities. please see John http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200305/msg00203.html John Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I saw this and it seems strictly inferior to Manoj's proposal. I agreed with most of the responses others posted explaining why this was a bad idea and so I did not post on that part of the thread myself.
Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
On Tue, 27 May 2003 22:25:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Hi, Sam Hartman wrote: And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother. Approvals. I think that word works well; we already have established that ranking an option WRT the default option is equivalent to checking (or not) that option on an approval ballot. There's not much difference between adding a sentence which states that the word quorum, as used in the proposal / the constitution, is not used with its commonly-accepted meaning, and defining our usage of the word approvals. s/quorum/minimum threshold for approval/g ? How do the other sponsors feel about this? manoj -- Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule. David Guaspari Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 09:48:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Seriously, Manoj's system *isn't* a quorum system. Raul Miller wrote: It's a per-option quorum. That's different from not being a quorum. On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:33:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always opinion-neutral, under every defintion. None of the definitions I've read include opinion-neutral as one of the constraints. None of the definitions I've read mention opinions at all -- though that, in a sense makes the definitions opinion neutral. People showing up to oppose something always count toward quorum. People don't show up for our votes. The votes themselves are all that show up. That's why Manoj's system is not a quorum system; it only counts people coming to vote *for* something, not people coming to vote that it's unacceptable. This is why I said that nobody here really seems to want a quorum system. In that sense, nobody has proposed a quorum system -- nobody has defined a mechanism for showing up which is anything other than a vote. Quorum is about number of people showing up for *discussion*, not *approving*. None of the definitions I've read talk about discussion or voting. * The proper scheme for making sure that an appropriate number of people approve of something is called getting seconds (and you've already got that). That's it. What's what? Are you saying that this is your preferred justification for Manoj's quorum system? I meant it's close enough to be worth discussing. Now, if you can: define appropriate, and explain why quorum is not appropriate. I don't know exactly what you're talking about here. I can't define appropriate number of people, that's up to you all. Ok. I will assume you meant: define proper and explain why quorum is not proper for this purpose. It is improper to use something called quorum for a purpose which does not satisfy (any of) the dictionary definitions of quorum, or the spirit behind them. It is particularly improper when there is already an appropriate phrase to use for this purpose. Which is? Getting more seconds? Approval? What we're doing is also slightly different than both of those, in much the same way what we're doing is slightly different from the traditional use of quorum. If it is accepted by Debian in general that quorum is to be used to me getting more seconds, then Manoj's system is fine, of course. But the fact that there's already a system for getting seconds in the Constitution indicates that perhaps Debian does not need a second method of getting seconds. Seconds are required to put something on the ballot, and is a fairly minimal standard. This is something different, and is based on some *significant* number of developers *agreeing that it's worth doing*. * The proper scheme for deferring to the default option unless there's a strong enough preference is margin-of-victory-over-default. Nope, that's the quorum alternative you proposed earlier today. What do you mean by nope? I said that the quorum alternative I proposed was in fact a margin-of-victory system. I mean, no, this is not a justification for Manoj's system. I will now try to justify Manoj's quorum system. No proposal can be implemented by fewer than R people, where R is the quorum. Therefore there's no point in approving any proposal with fewer than R people actively approving of it. Nope. That's John H. Robinson, IV's quorum. You must be very confused. John's quorum only requires that R people show up to vote, not that they approve of anything in particular. It's an actual quorum. I was refering to the first sentence of this justification, not the second. The second sentence, is ambiguous (what's a proposal?) enough to either follow logically from the first part (it being the ballot as a whole) or to omit some logical step and be a reference to the May 15 proposal (it being an option on the ballot). I'm sorry, I should have been more clear about this thought process. -- Raul
