Hi,
Since discussion seems to have died down here, could we have a
revised draft? (I am afraid I have not had time to follow the
discussion very closely of late, but I could go and read through the
archives if I must).
I still need to make changes to the vote taking scripts to
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:25:24AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
In any event, as I stated before, I had dropped the use of preferred
in favor of beat path because beat path is used in the technical
literature on voting systems and seems to have a precise definition
which agrees with the
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:25:24AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
In any event, as I stated before, I had dropped the use of preferred
in favor of beat path because beat path is used in the technical
literature on voting systems and seems to have a precise definition
which agrees with the
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 11:30:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
*shrug* Then how about An option A is said to master an option, B,
if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats C and
C masters B. ? Or transitively beats ?
In my first draft, I used Option j is PREFERRED over
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 03:03:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, you just said a message ago that you didn't like using terms that'd
been used before either, so that's a bit contradictory. It's weird
to think that x can be preferred over y while y is also preferred
over x, but probably not
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:42:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sorry, there's a Smith set, not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
Schwartz set.
Yes.
*shrug* Then how about An option A is said to master an option, B,
if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats C and
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 11:30:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
*shrug* Then how about An option A is said to master an option, B,
if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats C and
C masters B. ? Or transitively beats ?
In my first draft, I used Option j is PREFERRED over
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:42:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sorry, there's a Smith set, not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
Schwartz set.
Yes.
*shrug* Then how about An option A is said to master an option, B,
if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats C and
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:00:15PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
term-of-art.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
statement?
Here's
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
YM Schwartz set here? [0] There might be a Schulze set of some sort?
Sorry, there's a Smith set, not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
Schwartz set.
Remember
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
YM Schwartz set here? [0] There might be a Schulze set of some sort?
Sorry, there's a Smith set, not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
Schwartz set.
Remember
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:00:15PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
term-of-art.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
statement?
Here's
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
with no quorum required to propose the resolution.
We accept them with the same requirements as a resolution: a proposer
and some seconders -- quorums don't
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,
I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.
***
Axiomatic Definition:
Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
term-of-art.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
statement?
Here's my understanding:
The only place the constitution uses the word
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
--
A.3. Voting procedure
1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
with no quorum required to propose the resolution.
We accept them with the same requirements as a resolution: a proposer
and some seconders -- quorums don't
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
YM Schwartz set here? [0] There might be a Schulze set of some sort?
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/condor2.html says:
1. An unbeaten set is a set of candidates none of whom is beaten by
anyone outside that set. 2. An
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,
I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.
***
Axiomatic Definition:
Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number
Raul == Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raul On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raul Dominates invites non-technical comparisons between the
Raul proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism. I'd like to
Raul avoid that term if possible.
Except that
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
term-of-art.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
statement?
Here's my understanding:
The only place the constitution uses the word
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
--
A.3. Voting procedure
1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
option. If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
to it in ballot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
Raul Miller and I have been hashing this off line for a bit,
and this is what we have come up with (most of the driving came from
Raul, I am merely pushing this into the -vote list):
It still needs to be reviewed, and we'll need
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
--
A.3. Voting procedure
1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
option. If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
to it in ballot
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:56:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so far none of this has
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:56:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so far none of this has
For whatever it's worth: I think that the voting geeks recommendations
make sense and I think that fixing a bug in our voting system--even
one who's effect is statistically improbable--is a worthwhile use of
our time. I support moving forward with this.
AOL/
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:56:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so far none of this has
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:56:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so far none of this has
For whatever it's worth: I think that the voting geeks recommendations
make sense and I think that fixing a bug in our voting system--even
one who's effect is statistically improbable--is a worthwhile use of
our time. I support moving forward with this.
AOL/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Branden == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Branden On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns
Branden wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
however you counted the votes in the 2001 elections you got the same
result,
Who's to say this will be the case next year, and every
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Sure, I figured most people would draw the same conclusions themselves,
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
however you counted the votes in the 2001 elections you got the same
result,
Who's to say this will be the case next year, and every year
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Sure, I figured most people would draw the same conclusions themselves,
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:52:38AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
To recap the discussions held nearly a year and a half ago
(examining the debian-vote and debian-devel archives may prove
illuminating).
Thanks for raising this issue, Manoj!
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:52:38AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
[...] a GR to fix the voting process as defined in the constitution [...]
A precis:
* The vote counting method is really Condorcet not
Concorde. Kinda, almost.
* It's not obvious how to count
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:52:38AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
To recap the discussions held nearly a year and a half ago
(examining the debian-vote and debian-devel archives may prove
illuminating).
Thanks for raising this issue, Manoj!
--
G. Branden Robinson
41 matches
Mail list logo
