On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:44:24PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION
Proposed by: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wish to propose
not meant to have to argue a negative
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code
, 2000, a copy of which is included below.
your CFV is unconstitutional because nothing in the consitution allows
the Social Contract or DFSG to be amended.
Has the project secretary ruled on this yet? If not, it doesn't seem
reasonable to state this as fact.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Further Discussion. If Further Discussion wins then the entire
procedure is set back to the start of the discussion period.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We rej
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:26:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
[Project secretary]'s not a huge
job, but it's very important that it be done in a manner that inspires
confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the process,
Are you volunteering?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL
]:
Amend \A*mend"\ (?;), v. t. [imp. p. p. Amended; p. pr. vb.
To change or modify in any way for the better [...]
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presi
phrasings concurrently, with the old form crossed out or the
new form underlined, or similar, so it's possible to see what's changed.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 09:40:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given this, A.3.1 and A.3.2 seem to imply that we have to have two
votes, one to determine whether Branden's preferred form, or Manoj's
will be used, and one on whether to amend
won't ever win here with a condorcet scheme since
the only remaining options are those that beat further discussion in
pairwise contests (since otherwise they wouldn't have the required
majority, let alone supermajority).
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 08:43:44AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 21-Nov-00, 03:42 (CST), Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 12:30:28AM -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Buddha Buck wrote:
Here's how it would work. Voters rank all candidates
On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 11:44:40AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 02:20:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Not helped by me making up my own terminology now and then, by the looks.
What I've been randomly calling the "schwartz" set, is actually meant
to be called
On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:12:51PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:44:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The reason I'm not accepting your interpretation, or considering it
at all reasonable, is that I'm still not seeing any basis for your
interpretation than
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 02:38:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 12:36:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
That depends what you consider "plausible". I'm willing to believe the
constitution has bugs, and that in some circumstances it may very well
come up with n
an appropriate method of handling supermajorities.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
PGP signature
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 10:30:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:16:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
If you still require N initial votes and 1 final vote, it has no benefit
over the current wording, at all, since supermajorities only apply to
final votes, which
and "No" are, no matter how strongly you might assert it.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
PGP signature
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:17:05AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 01:07:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
"Status-quo" means don't resolve *anything*. There are at most two
ways of doing that: by doing nothing, and not even discussing the
matter again, an
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 06:11:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 05:02:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Well, you're welcome to disagree, but be aware that your definition
doesn't match the way the current system (the N+1 votes) works, and
doesn't match the way most
no on A
no on A, no on B
further discussion.
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 11:46:55AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Okay, now consider the vote being proposed by Manoj and Branden, then
one that has alternatives "Allow modification of foundational documents
with 3:1 supermajority" and "Allow modi
it
rises up out of the water.
But some options are denser than that: options requiring a supermajority
turn out to require, say, twice as many people pushing it up and those
pushing it down to stay afloat. Some of them require three times as many
people pushing it up as pulling it down.
We
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 02:25:26PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 05:58:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It'd have a substantial effect if a supermajority was required: if 60
of 100 people preferred your second preference, and voted Yes/Further
Discussion/No, while 40
iscussed so
far, so I'm inclined against wandering into that fray and having to
come back and start this all over again.
I suspect that the reason this discussion has been so prolonged has more
to do with my lack of understanding of your unstated assumptions. [And,
to be fair: your lack of und
equirements
first.
It would help if you'd not argue from a basis of "that's what
supermajority means so that's how supermajority works" for a few
messages, perhaps.
Was my treatment in this message adequate?
It was closer, but you fell back to talking about votes "for"
on a single message, followed by a final vote which is just:
Final ballot:
[ _ ] Yes to P+B+D
[ _ ] No to P+B+D
[ _ ] Further discussion
which saves the secretary from having to list all 32 options on any
single form, or have to conduct six votes one after the other, or
anything similarly tedious.
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
PGP signature
after
all. In which case they're not really perverting the vote, either.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.c
y'' to stand alone,
and the ``for each'' to mean they get to ``vote'' many times, each of
which may well be ``different'', and what you're voting for or against
is only mentioned in the previous clause.
Cheers,
a ``it's a vase, you moron!'' j
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.hu
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:04:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 04:52:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Explain to me, again, why the first preference is no more important
than the other preferences?
You're mixing and matching what you apply the word "prefe
non-expert, that
hasn't particularly stood the test of time all that well.
Can you see why I don't think all this random "but that's not what the
constitution *says*" junk isn't the right way to approach this, or even
a particularly helpful interlude?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony To
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 07:48:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 08:16:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's not like your interpretation (of supermajorities in particular,
but also of cyclic tie-breaking) has ever actually been used before,
either within Debian
n directly. It's not particularly obvious
that it even satisfies the Smith criterion, afaict.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid
so fairly complicated, and it's already been
found to be buggy a couple of times. There also hasn't been any attempt
to clean that up, or to analyse it and ensure it works how everyone
thinks it works.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:26:57AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 07:23:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
What about writing some kind of code that resolve the vote in some kind of
easy to prove language
%) m68k
Percentages as a total of the 4345 source packages currently in unstable;
which isn't particularly meaningful, but should be indicative.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_
d. How
would you answer your question?
Cheers,
aj, who doesn't see how "yes" or "no" is particularly better than
an entire sentence or two explaining what you're going to do anyway
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 06:25:19PM -0600, Acting Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Your ballot has been received and tallied.
--
Name: Anthony Towns
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Id: ajt
Ballot: 4213
(So much for anonymous
will
receive a SECOND confirmation in the next couple of days. If the second
confirmation is STILL wrong, please let us know.
I didn't receive a second confirmation; I've revoted since though, and it
appeared to come out right.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au
o C$A C$B $x; done; done) | sed
's/C1/Branden/g;s/C2/Anand/g;s/C3/Ben/g;s/C4/Bdale/g;s/C5/no-one/g' | sort | column -t
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in in
one
of the voting schemes from Schneier's book, but even then you wouldn't
be safe from a truly malicious secretary.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface
talking about whatever it is that bothers you, like where
-private topics can be discussed other than -private, or what other ways
there are of keeping #dd usable, with less annoyance to newcomers.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak
about the rationale, but you didn't really explain
what you want to happen. I couldn't really be bothered following this
thread anymore though, I've got better things to do. If #dd becomes
something I'm not interested in, I just won't be a part of it. *shrug*
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 01:24:45PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 06:07:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
The burden of proof is always on the person making a positive
claim. Prove that he's never read this book, versus Prove that he
has read this book, eg.
You're
,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Security here. Yes, maam. Yes. Groucho glasses. Yes, we're on it.
C'mon, guys. Somebody gave an aardvark a nose-cut: somebody who
can't deal
://people.debian.org/~ajt/cloneproof_ssd.pl
It's been a long while, so I'm not sure I could explain that code if I tried,
but it does appear to have been commented...
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. GPG signed mail
to the people holding
the positions in some case. OTOH, it's not particularly clear that this
actually matters in practice.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. http://linux.conf.au/
``Debian: giving you the power to shoot
for a pompous
blowhard?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
We came. We Saw. We Conferenced. http://linux.conf.au/
``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each
toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
msg01434/pgp0.pgp
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:05:32PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:45:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Refs relative to: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/.
Is it just me, or does having the year and list name both appear twice
in these urls
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 03:03:27AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:45:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
So. The first question is is this dissatisfaction justified? How long is
the woody release taking compared to other releases? Well, that's easy:
version
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 03:28:02PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
For the record, I'll note that I'm much, much more efficient writing
emails than HTML.
*cough*
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 01:06:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:45:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Some questions for the DPL candidates...
So, a followup question for Branden: does your lack of response to these
questions reflect the level of accountability
busy needn't feel compelled to reply. ;)
Cheers,
aj, wondering if he managed to finish this before the CFV's has gone out,
and thus can at least argue to still be within the `campaigning'
period
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone
is to make sure we can trust our vote counter.
Pfft, where's the fun in that?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Vote [1] Bdale!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 04:56:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(where p_a is the probability
of getting caught faking a vote for person a), which decreases fairly
rapidly. Of course, for MIA developers, p_a approaches 1,
^
0, obviously
for Branden or Raphael.
Of course, not being based in Zimbabwe or Florida, this probably isn't a
huge concern.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Vote [1] Bdale
wants to conclude.
The tally will look like:
The following people voted:
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mickey Mouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The following votes were received:
1234
negligible.
It's trivial for Debian users to generate high quality 128 bit random
numbers, so it's also trivial to avoid collisions with something so near
to certainty it's not worth worrying about.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:59:51AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:44:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:10:39AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I grant you that it is susceptible to someone who gets to you
before the vote. This seems very
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 10:44, Anthony Towns wrote:
Actually, it's pretty easy. As part of the vote, you have an order id,
and whichever of these is highest, no matter what order the votes were
received in, is accepted. So
with
any of the corner cases, somewhere back in the archives, fwiw.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
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
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
msg01824/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
), or,
in the absolute worst case, that the drawbacks are minor and outweighed
by orders of magnitude by the benefits.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older
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
set I used requires transitive closure, and is
thus tied to the term beat path. Other than that, I suspect you
could be right.
Well, defeat path then :)
So what's the draft look like now? How many years did it take for us to
manage to agree on this? :)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL
].
Okay, that makes sense.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
the calculation of the Schwartz set
in terms of defeats rather than beats.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
msg01856
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
Schwartz
Sequential Dropping Method (SSD) somewhere underneath?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
msg01860/pgp0.pgp
. If this new schultz set contains only one option, that option
wins.
This can happen with the initial Schwartz set too, so should really be
before (ii).
vi. Otherwise, these steps (i-vi) are repeated with this new
schultz set.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED
of those, outside of election-method
geeks. So it ain't just yankees who aren't familiar with it.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:12:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
6. If more than one option remains after the above steps, we use
Cloneproof Schultz Sequential Dropping to eliminate any cyclic
^^^
Schwartz.
*gibber*
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED
a single 1. Alternative voting, or instant
runoff, is fairly similar, but can be a little chaotic in its results.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one
eliminated leaving A
B and B C (and A,B,C D), and the second Schwartz set is {A}.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do
.
It seems simpler to not have either (5) or (6.v) but just to say If
the Scwartz set has a single option, it is the winner. as step (6.i).
vi. Otherwise, these steps (i-vi) are repeated with this new
Schwartz set.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
) is (are) eliminated.
Give me tautological definitions any day.
I am tempted to use your definition of V(X,Y), but I'd prefer the thing
being defined be something more intrinsically meaningful than V.
NV for number of votes/voters?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
is S beats T, 60:50, and D beats S 50:30, and
D wins. Given T was unanimously preferred to D, that seems like a
significant loss.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do
as has been demonstrated.
Which is lame, but not horribly bad.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
msg02009/pgp0.pgp
you get that idea from?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
msg02010/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 01:19:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:56:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Does anyone see any significant strategies for inconsistency with this
kind of mechanism?
It has the problem that it's much easier for a non-supermajority option
for A, but I won't vote for A now and I won't vote for
A ever, whether B wins or not.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do
with the voting software as it stands; I don't know
that anyone cares enough to make it officially supported.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year
beats D 90:10, the fact that A beats B 60:40 is
irrelevant)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:24:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
supermajority and default swapped
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:32:50AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:26:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:24:34AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:31:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:41:46PM -0500
, and everyone else STFU
C -- further discussion
It seems fairer to me to bias towards further discussion, than a decision
that we can't agree on.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail
candidates they don't like?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
should be special.
We're not introducing special rules because the default option is
special, we're making the default option special since it seems the
best way to handle the special rule we want.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak
the option of
either convincing all but a fringe minority that your goals are better,
or of starting your own project.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one
votes should be strategy free as below.
There's no point proposing something until you've decided what you want to
*achieve* with that proposal. I think you're missing the point of what
supermajority is meant to achieve at the moment.
Then Anthony Towns wrote:
But it's exactly what we're trying
preferred
B to the result we ended up with.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:14:41PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:53:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its
goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of
either convincing all
are between members of the Schwartz set rule from
previously was necessary, and couldn't convince myself it wasn't at
the time.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 04:10:32AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
*shrug* I don't care about quorums :)
We could trivially deal with quorums by saying: The quorum is met
if Q ballots are received from distinct voters. If quorum
a total turn out of N is roughly the same as requiring a turn out
in favour of N/2, anyway.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do
than sincere voting, but I don't
believe there are signficantly more than in straight Condorcet voting.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year
so that a supermajority
is required in future, of course. But that would be hypocritical,
wouldn't it?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:33:01AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
No, voters propose General Resolutions and amendments thereto, not
ballot options per se.
*cough*
I don't understand.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-26/msg00040.html,
etc.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony
will it solve these problems?
3. Why are we solving the problems in this particular manner?
4. Does it introduce any new problems, however remote?
These issues are more or less what's being debated, so there's no
consensus on the answers to these at this time.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED
!
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
seems like a
trivial and uncontestable first step)
Anyway, does anyone who doesn't understand why we have supermajorities
actually care about the reasons, or are we just at the point of make up
things to discuss for no real reason?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
1 - 100 of 1212 matches
Mail list logo
