Hello Manoj,
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided My way or
the Highway.
Sorry, but I
Hi Hamish,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 12:31:15AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Usually it refers to changes that clarify the meaning without changing
that meaning. I'd be interested in hearing your definition, since you
seconded the GR.
Yes, this is exactly my point of view, too. And I think
this
Hi Hamish,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:22:27PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Do you believe that the GR has had no effect other than editorial?
Or simply that the change is a good thing anyway?
Because you are asking: I always read the word software in the
old version of the social contract as
Hi Hamish,
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:22:27PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Do you believe that the GR has had no effect other than editorial?
Or simply that the change is a good thing anyway?
Because you are asking: I always read the word software in the
old version of the social contract as
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Social Contract now states:
] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
] ...
As this is no longer limited to software, and as this decision was
made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
non-software
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The Social Contract now states:
] 1. Debian will remain 100% free
] ...
As this is no longer limited to software, and as this decision was
made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider
non-software
Hello Manoj,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:31:41PM -0600, Debian Project secretary wrote:
Proposer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seconds:1. Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Manoj,
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:31:41PM -0600, Debian Project secretary wrote:
Proposer: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seconds:1. Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
3. Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vanicat
Steve Langasek
Branden Robinson
Jochen Voss
2) Raul Miller
submitted 9 Feb 2004
No seconds
Maybe there are older version with seconds?
3) Anthony Towns
submitted 22 Feb 2004
Seconds:
Graham Wilson
Stephen Staffor
Martin Buck
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:12:32PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the social contract are replaced with the
following text:
1. Debian will remain 100% free
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free
in the document entitled The Debian Free
Vanicat
Steve Langasek
Branden Robinson
Jochen Voss
2) Raul Miller
submitted 9 Feb 2004
No seconds
Maybe there are older version with seconds?
3) Anthony Towns
submitted 22 Feb 2004
Seconds:
Graham Wilson
Stephen Staffor
Martin Buck
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 10:34:16AM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
What is the current state of the non-free GR?
Which proposals are still being considered?
Which proposals still do need seconds?
Especially:
On Oct
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 10:34:16AM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
What is the current state of the non-free GR?
Which proposals are still being considered?
Which proposals still do need seconds?
Especially:
On Oct
Hello,
I did not follow the discussion closely,
so I completely lost track.
What is the current state of the non-free GR?
Which proposals are still being considered?
Which proposals still do need seconds?
Especially:
On Oct. 30 2003 I seconded a proposal of Brandon Robinson.
Is this one still
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:29:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What's your point? It's been discussed copiously before, so it
shouldn't be discussed again? So what? debian-legal had to field
redundant questions about what's wrong with the GNU FDL over and over
and over again
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:29:17PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What's your point? It's been discussed copiously before, so it
shouldn't be discussed again? So what? debian-legal had to field
redundant questions about what's wrong with the GNU FDL over and over
and over again
Hello,
I second the following proposal.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
Constitution is drawing to a close, the time is ripe to clear the last
bit of
Hello,
I second the following proposal.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
Constitution is drawing to a close, the time is ripe to clear the last
bit of
Hi,
now I am really confused.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
not be able to decrypt your message.
is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
messages. The
Hi,
now I am really confused.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
not be able to decrypt your message.
is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
messages. The
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further
Discussion choice by the voting software).
If the software implements the quota and
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Discussion choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked
choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to the Further
Discussion choice by the voting software).
If the software implements the quota and
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:33:51AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
I hope so :-)
Jochen
--
http://seehuhn.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:33:51AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 04:55, Jochen Voss wrote:
I second the above amendment.
Doesn't this mean the BR amendment now has enough seconds?
I hope so :-)
Jochen
--
http://seehuhn.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 04:24:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I, too, would like to re-propose the General Resolution I proposed three
years ago. (This is substantively the same, with only minor wording
changes.)
==
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:48:01AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:27:24PM -0400, Christine Stockdale wrote:
So, where's the prize?
Does anyone know what's going on? This is the third on this list.
Is someone running a scam with our name on it? Is it
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:48:01AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:27:24PM -0400, Christine Stockdale wrote:
So, where's the prize?
Does anyone know what's going on? This is the third on this list.
Is someone running a scam with our name on it? Is it
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:25:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Only now I notice that the tally sheet makes all the votes public.
Is this by accident again or was this the plan this time?
Why would you think this was an accident?
Sorry, I remembered that the 2001 DPL
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 12:29:42PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:50:22 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Under the Debian Constitution, section 4.2(3), after the vote the
Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. (This is different than
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 12:29:42PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:50:22 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Under the Debian Constitution, section 4.2(3), after the vote the
Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. (This is different than
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
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
Hello Manoj,
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
To vote no, no matter what rank None Of The Above as more
^^
desirable than the unacceptable choices, ...
[ ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment
[
Hello Manoj,
On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
To vote no, no matter what rank None Of The Above as more
^^
desirable than the unacceptable choices, ...
[ ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment
[
Hello Manoj,
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 08:43:34PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
This vote is being conducted in accordance to the Debian Constitution,
Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on ...
- - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hello,
in our constitution I read (about Quorum)
Q is half of the square root of the number of current Developers.
Does anybody remember the reason for choosing half the square root?
Why not just, let's say, 10% of the developers? Or is the rationale
for this lost in time?
Thank you,
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 03:50:59PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:46:13PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
In my example local quorum causes the following problem:
dropping an irrelevant option changes which
relevant option wins the election.
Global quorum does not have
Hello,
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 08:45:51PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I'm going to focus only on your claim that this page shows an example
of the violation of monotonicity by Manoj's proposal.
Monotonicity (http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.html#MC) requires
With the relative order or
Hello,
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 02:45:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Ugh, that's an overcomplicated example. Here's a simpler one:
Did you read it carefully?
Three options, A, B and D (the default option). Quorum is 10. Votes are:
9 ABD
4 BDA
A defeauts B, 9:4; B defeats D,
Hello,
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 12:23:17AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 08:54:32AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
Did you read it carefully?
No, I didn't, and since it's so complicated I wouldn't expect to
understand it properly even if I had. I hate complicated examples
Hello Manoj,
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:31:14AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2003 22:43:59 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
- 2. If the ballot has a quorum requirement R any options other
- than the default option which do not
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:29:36AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Jochen Voss wrote:
My example: The winner among the interesting options changes
because an uninteresting option fails quorum.
That is a property of any Condorcet conflict resolution system. You can't
avoid
Hello,
I think that John's modification is a good thing.
Hereby I second the amendment quoted below.
Jochen
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 12:19:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
--- proposal-srivasta Fri May 16 09:42:59 2003
+++ proposal-jaqque Mon May 19 11:43:13 2003
@@ -1,139 +1,139 @@
Hello Raul,
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 04:57:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Hard to understand? We'd require a certain level of voter approval
before we'll consider an option -- options which don't achieve that
can't win. How is this hard to understand?
The thing which is hard to understand, is
Hello Manoj,
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 10:15:14AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Right. Leads to a lot of soul searching -- I no longer know
whether I am helping or hurting my candidate by expressing my true
preference.
I should not be put in this position.
I fully agree. But
Hello John,
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 01:17:20AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
a. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of
Hello,
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:04:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
We seem to have stalled again.
I really would like to see the voting system fixed.
Is there anything I could do to speed things up at this point?
As far as I can see the following things need to happen:
1)
Hello,
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:52:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I suggest we strike the clause about the secretary's ability
to end votes early.
I agree with this. The no longer in daubt clause is
hard to get right and early termination of votes doesn't buy
us much.
Jochen
Hello,
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:04:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I really would like to nail this down, and start the 2 week
discussion period this week, and start the vote before the end of the
month.
This would be great :-)
Jochen
--
[ Cc to debian-vote, bacause it may be of general interest. ]
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 07:37:53PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
At 03\04\21 22:42 +0200 Monday, Jochen Voss wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 08:22:51PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
Jochen Voss keeps online a false claim
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Like so?
Yes, I like this approach much better.
A minor issue:
6. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then [...]
Could we write something like When there are no more defeats left in
the Schwartz
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:18:33AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
However, given that defeats is a verb and we're using defeat as a
noun, maybe it would be clearer to say:
4. We construct the Schwartz set based on undropped options and
defeats:
a. The vote tallies
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:05:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think we should separate the definition of terminology of
defeats from the details of constructions of the Schwartz set.
I think we are loosing the track again. What is the problem you are
trying to solve here? I
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 07:14:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Did you miss the first sentence?
Yes, I did miss the first sentence. Sorry!
5. If there are defeats between options in the Schwartz set, we
drop the weakest such defeats, and return to step 4.
I asked
Hello Manoj,
could we please have a sentence like all candiates did meet the
quorum requirement in addition to this strange Only one candidate
failed to win by a margin greater than the quorum thing on the web
page
http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0001
In my eyes the current version of
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
a. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters
Hi Manoj,
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 11:33:16AM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#187864: www.debian.org: 2003 DPL election page claims that someone failed to
meet quorum,
which was filed against the www.debian.org package.
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:50:20AM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From the section of the constitution quoted earlier, the quorum is
the number of people who must prefer an option to the default option.
Yes, and 228 voters expressed such a
Hello,
on the Debian Project Leader Elections 2003 page at
http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0001
I read that With 831 developers, Q=14.41353531, making a quorum of
43.2406059, or, rounding up, 44. Only one candidate failed to meet
quorum. To find a cadidate which failed quorum I would
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Martin Sjögren wrote:
fre 2003-04-04 klockan 08.23 skrev Jochen Voss:
Hello,
on the Debian Project Leader Elections 2003 page at
http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0001
I read that With 831 developers, Q=14.41353531, making a quorum
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 08:57:50AM +0200, Martin Sjögren wrote:
fre 2003-04-04 klockan 08.23 skrev Jochen Voss:
Hello,
on the Debian Project Leader Elections 2003 page at
http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0001
I read that With 831 developers, Q=14.41353531, making a quorum
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 12:10:27AM +0200, Davi Leal wrote:
Could you supply me any documentation of the Debian Project e-Voting system?.
I collected information and references about the Debian voting system at
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/comp/vote.html
If you
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 09:50:05AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm, mention that the actual voting software shall soon be
packaged (name: devotee), and is currently available for inspection
for any debian developer?
Oh, yes, this is a good idea. Where can it be inspected?
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 12:10:27AM +0200, Davi Leal wrote:
Could you supply me any documentation of the Debian Project e-Voting system?.
I collected information and references about the Debian voting system at
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/comp/vote.html
If you
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:55:52AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Ah, I think this might interact very badly with super majorities. Or
at least it seems important to educate the voters that they really
want to rank default above accept if they vote for reject.
At least we have the following
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 01:55:52AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Ah, I think this might interact very badly with super majorities. Or
at least it seems important to educate the voters that they really
want to rank default above accept if they vote for reject.
At least we have the following
Hi Manoj,
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:28:09AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
is the new version, with the input of people on the list.
I'm happy with this, now. Thank you for your work,
Jochen
--
Omm
(0)-(0)
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:48:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
ie, the steps I'm suggesting are:
1. If there's a default option, satisfy quorum and supermajority
[this leaves us with the default option, and those other
options that satisify q sm;
Hello Manoj,
the new draft looks good to me. I only found some stylistic issues.
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 10:18:23AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Under 4.2 Procedure [for developers during a general resolution or
election], change item 3 to read:
3. ..., and may be ended by the
Hello,
I try to maintain a web page which explains our voting system.
You can find this page at
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/comp/vote.html
Among other things I want to explain the reasons for our changes to
the textbook version of Condorcet voting with clone-proof
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 02:48:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
ie, the steps I'm suggesting are:
1. If there's a default option, satisfy quorum and supermajority
[this leaves us with the default option, and those other
options that satisify q sm;
Hello,
I think it would be time to finish the process of repairing
the voting mechanism in the debian policy.
Prerequisites:
1) discussion: we had a lot of it
2) drafts to vote upon: we have at least Raul Miller's one
What is missing now? I think we should vote about this
soon, so that this
Hello,
I think it would be time to finish the process of repairing
the voting mechanism in the debian policy.
Prerequisites:
1) discussion: we had a lot of it
2) drafts to vote upon: we have at least Raul Miller's one
What is missing now? I think we should vote about this
soon, so that this
Hello,
I want to inject some facts into the discussion. You can also find
the following analysis on my Debian voting system web page at
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/comp/vote.html
I want to examine the following voting system:
Let N(a,b) be the number of votes which
Hello,
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 05:36:23PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
This is an informal writeup on the logical properties of the voting
mechanics I proposed on 2002-12-08.
Thank you for analysing this. You were faster the I am :-)
Jochen
--
Omm
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 02:51:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It's irrelevant, we don't have votes without quorum/supermajority
requirement.
Sorry, I didn't know that :-(
I think the above is a counterexample to your idea:
Which idea? A counterexample to per-vote (and not pre-option)
Hello,
I want to inject some facts into the discussion. You can also find
the following analysis on my Debian voting system web page at
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/comp/vote.html
I want to examine the following voting system:
Let N(a,b) be the number of votes which
Hello
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:20:20AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Can we possibly stop coming up with full blown voting systems while
we still don't have a firm idea of the underlying things we're trying
to achieve?
Good idea :-)
(1) We want a voting system that handles quorums.
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Feel free to send me a test message [off list] if today is Nov 24.
Indeed we have Nov 24 in middle Europe, now. The last message I saw
from you on debian-devel was [EMAIL PROTECTED].
I hope this helps,
Jochen
--
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 02:23:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Feel free to send me a test message [off list] if today is Nov 24.
Indeed we have Nov 24 in middle Europe, now. The last message I saw
from you on debian-devel was [EMAIL PROTECTED].
I hope this helps,
Jochen
--
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 11:01:32AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
A = change the scoial contract and remove non-free
(Requires supermajority)
B = try to nurture and increase non-free
(Requires no supermajority
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Cases where the default option defeats another option are never the
weakest defeats.
Huh? Can you explain this to me? Why could this be true?
Confused,
Jochen
--
Omm
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
In other words, supermajority options are eliminated only when their
weakest defeats against schwartz set options are eliminated, and we have
a bias towards the default option in some (but not all)
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
In other words, supermajority options are eliminated only when their
weakest defeats against schwartz set options are eliminated, and we have
a bias towards the default option in some (but not all)
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
As to why I prefer (2) over the rest... CpSSD is well-defined and
reasonably well studied when all votes are counted equally. I find the
idea of scaling votes involving particular options to change it enough
that its
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:30:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
1. Why are we doing this? What are the problems that we hope to solve?
What are some examples of this?
The description of the voting system in the current constitution
is kind of broken. For one there is the spelling mistake
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:04:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement
(like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which changes
the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more severe for
our current set of
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
[1] ... [5]
I did not think much about this until now.
But what do you think about
[6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used
to
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
the whole supermajority thing i feel would make people vote insincerely.
the ony way to avoid it, as i see it, is to _remove entirely_ the Quorum
and Supermajority requirements.
Just to repeat myself: I would support
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
2. If fewer ballots are received than the required quorum for
the vote, the default option is declared the winner.
This is a version of quorum I could happily live with.
3. If a majority of N:1 is required
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
Making random additions (with only half-understood consequences)
to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me.
Er.. are you suggesting we squelch
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
As to why I prefer (2) over the rest... CpSSD is well-defined and
reasonably well studied when all votes are counted equally. I find the
idea of scaling votes involving particular options to change it enough
that its
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:30:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
1. Why are we doing this? What are the problems that we hope to solve?
What are some examples of this?
The description of the voting system in the current constitution
is kind of broken. For one there is the spelling mistake
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:04:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement
(like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which changes
the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more severe for
our current set of
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority:
[1] ... [5]
I did not think much about this until now.
But what do you think about
[6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used
to
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:12:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is
required to override important decisions. This has some elegantly
simple mathematical
Hello Raul,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 02:13:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
As always, if there are any flaws in my thinking or in my presentation,
please tell me. This is a fairly complete rewrite so please scrutinize
it suspiciously.
A.6 Vote Counting [...]
I like this draft. I think it
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have
lost.
So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger,
isn't it?
Jochen
--
Omm
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 is not met,
the default option wins.
Actually I would prefer this
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:55:05PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If even one of the people voting BA had refused to vote, A would have
lost.
So what? The quorum is not a tool to make small margins seem larger,
isn't it?
Jochen
--
Omm
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
