On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:06:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
So if for example 4 members of the TC would say only systemd is an
acceptable choice, and the other 4 members of the TC would say only
upstart is an acceptable choice, then any result other than further
discussion would be
Sébastien Villemot writes (Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
P1: DT UT DL UL
P2: DL UL DT UT
P3: UT UL DL DT
P4: UT UL DL DT
This is a nice example which actually demonstrates why these questions
need to be voted on in a single ballot.
If one votes on T-vs-L before U-vs-D
On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 17:10 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Sébastien Villemot writes (Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
P1: DT UT DL UL
P2: DL UL DT UT
P3: UT UL DL DT
P4: UT UL DL DT
This is a nice example which actually demonstrates why these questions
need
On 2 February 2014 04:05, Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi wrote:
On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 17:10 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
Sébastien Villemot writes (Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
P1: DT UT DL UL
So his example was one where the D/U and L/T choices were independent
for every
Le jeudi 30 janvier 2014 à 14:40 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
D DM U UM O OM V VM GR and of course FD
[snip text for 10 different options]
== optional rider M (Multiple init systems) ==
Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
Hi Josselin,
I'm not sure what you mean here, could you care to elaborate?
Neil
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le vendredi 31 janvier 2014 à 11:55 +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
Hi Josselin,
I'm not sure what you mean here, could you care to elaborate?
Here is my
Hi Neil,
Le vendredi 31 janvier 2014 à 11:55 +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
I'm not sure what you mean here, could you care to elaborate?
Wikipedia has a
On 31/01/14 14:02, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
P1: DT UT DL UL
P2: DL UL DT UT
P3: UT UL DL DT
P4: UT UL DL DT
Of course, in the alternative scenario with two consecutive ballots (one
on the init, followed by one on the coupling), it would not have been
possible to express this
On 31/01/14 14:02, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
the reason of the victory of upstart in this hypothetical
vote is that systemd proponents prefer to lose on the coupling question
rather than on the init system question
If having systemd is still a preference despite the outcome of the other
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:02:21PM +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
Le vendredi 31 janvier 2014 à 11:55 +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
Hi Josselin,
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes:
== optional rider M (Multiple init systems) ==
Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
and code remain healthy.
Where feasible, software should
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
With only two realistic options (systemd / upstart), this problem
doesn’t exist. But introducing more options on the ballot, it becomes
possible to obtain a rigged outcome. The vote being public, it is all
the more easier to see how you should rank
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
If this actually becomes the case, we can vote again, or change our
votes. Burying will be pretty obvious in this case, after all.
Scratch what I said.
Given that there isn't actually a potential compromise winner in this
case, or anyone who has
I have taken Bdale's text, reformatted it a bit, and added the GR
rider and the multiple init systems rider texts.
For the GR rider I used the version from my previous standalone
proposal. I see Bdale has a different text in git. I'll discuss that
in a moment.
For the multiple init systems
Ian Jackson writes (TC resolution revised draft):
For the GR rider I used the version from my previous standalone
proposal. I see Bdale has a different text in git. I'll discuss that
in a moment.
I see that Bdale has his own draft in git.
The differences are:
* My GR rider is different to
On 30/01/14 14:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
D DM U UM O OM V VM GR and of course FD
I think we can probably leave out one of each of O OM V VM. If anyone
has a preference for O and V over OM and VM please say so.
Couldn't it bias the outcome if votes might otherwise have been split
between O
Ian Jackson writes (TC resolution revised draft):
I'm going to follow up in a moment with a formal action to propose
a resolution, starting the constitutional discussion period.
I hereby formally propose what I have called UM (text below).
I also hereby formally propose DM as an amendment, but
Steven Chamberlain writes (Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
On 30/01/14 14:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
D DM U UM O OM V VM GR and of course FD
I think we can probably leave out one of each of O OM V VM. If anyone
has a preference for O and V over OM and VM please say so
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
On 2014-01-30 15:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
Our voting system (Condorcet with Schwartz Cloneproof Sequential
Dropping) is designed to cope with that. In actual practice I'm
expecting to have a single Condorcet winner in which
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
So if we assume that upstart wins, would it be acceptable to depend on
systemd (or vice versa)? We might then get a set called, say, Unity,
depending on upstart and one called, say, GNOME, depending on systemd,
which would
Philipp Kern writes (Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft):
On 2014-01-30 15:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
== optional rider M (Multiple init systems) ==
Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
22 matches
Mail list logo
