--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,,
This is the second call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone
proof SSD voting methods GR. Apparently, the first call did not make
it to d-d-a.
For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
could
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Scenario B:
Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been
44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am
opposed to the option.
At this point; under my version; I can
This fails the Monotonicity Criterion (MC)
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:10:05AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Doesn't this depend on (a) the order in which the votes are received,
No.
[I'm busy at the moment, but I'll try to answer your other questions
later, if no one else has by then.]
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
could the proponents of this amendment please explain what problem
it attempts to solve, with real life examples?
An explanation of why we need such a
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
As an aside, where is the constituition located on www.d.o,
http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
and why doesn't the search engine find any references to it at all?
...can't help you with that one.
--
G. Branden Robinson
Raul Miller wrote:
And, finally, the new voting system is (for the most part) compatible
with the intent of the existing voting system. It supports supermajority
(which makes changing the constitution hard), and it supports quorum
(which means very low participation can invalidate the
Message to debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Ola
debian-vote
GANHAMOS O PRÊMIO DE MELHOR SITE DO RAMO
==Estamos operando em Novo Formato==
Confira em:
escuta21.kit.netou
http://www.escuta21.kit.net
ei debian-vote
Cuidado com o que fala ao Celular...
ele tb tem ouvidos...
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,,
This is the second call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone
proof SSD voting methods GR. Apparently, the first call did not make
it to d-d-a.
For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
could
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:58:10PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Scenario B:
Consider the case where the quorum is 45, and there have been
44 votes -- 23 for, 21 against. (Only one option on the ballot). I am
opposed to the option.
At this point; under my version; I can
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
could the proponents of this amendment please explain what problem
it attempts to solve, with real life examples?
An explanation of why we need such a
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
As an aside, where is the constituition located on www.d.o,
http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
and why doesn't the search engine find any references to it at all?
...can't help you with that one.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
could the proponents of this amendment please explain what problem
it attempts to solve, with real life examples?
An explanation of why we need such a complicated
Raul Miller wrote:
And, finally, the new voting system is (for the most part) compatible
with the intent of the existing voting system. It supports supermajority
(which makes changing the constitution hard), and it supports quorum
(which means very low participation can invalidate the
15 matches
Mail list logo
