On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most
people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's
mathematically sound or not, that's how people think.
It might be how *you* think; but at
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:13:26AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most
people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's
mathematically sound or
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most
people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's
mathematically sound or not, that's how people think.
It might be how *you* think; but at
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 02:13:26AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:48:59AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I would expect to see a highly polarised set of results, where most
people rank further discussion as 2. It doesn't matter whether it's
mathematically sound or
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:56:55AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Interesting idea, but there's zero chance of it working. People can't
even fill out the existing ballots properly, they'll never grasp this
- so the results won't tell us anything particularly useful.
I'm not sure why anyone who
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not
the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further.
For practical purposes, the outcome is identical. Keep non-free
means nothing changes and
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:44:50PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:55:03AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not
the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further.
For practical purposes, the
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:56:55AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Interesting idea, but there's zero chance of it working. People can't
even fill out the existing ballots properly, they'll never grasp this
- so the results won't tell us anything particularly useful.
I'm not sure why anyone who
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:27:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
[ ] Drop non-free
[
9 matches
Mail list logo
