Adam Borowski writes:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:40:03AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>> Adam Borowski writes:
>> > Here's how this works in the real world:
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote
>> >
>> > As our ballots routinely get sorted (systemd was FBADHEG$) according to the
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 07:43:50PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>...
> That's why we don't get pure donkey votes (12345678).
>...
With an ordered list of options, having the first 7 options ordered
1234567 is the correct choice if you favour the first option and agree
with the order.
Most people
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:40:03AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Adam Borowski writes:
> > Here's how this works in the real world:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_vote
> >
> > As our ballots routinely get sorted (systemd was FBADHEG$) according to the
> > vote's spectrum, it would be
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:27:28PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
>> * Adrian Bunk [2021-04-11 20:53]:
>> > I am not saying people were stupid.
>> Okay, that was hyperbolic. But you have to admit that you don't seem to
>> put much confidence in people's ability (or
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:27:28PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk [2021-04-11 20:53]:
> > I am not saying people were stupid.
> Okay, that was hyperbolic. But you have to admit that you don't seem to
> put much confidence in people's ability (or willingness) to read the
> explanations
> "Gunnar" == Gunnar Wolf writes:
Gunnar> I would not like to remove the expressive option of stating
Gunnar> '-' as a synonym to "below all other options".
We are in agreement.
However, I think Adrian has made a point that there are some non-obvious
consequences if you don't fully
Sam Hartman dijo [Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 06:12:31AM -0400]:
> I'd support revising the instructions to recommend that voters rank all
> options on the ballot.
>
> I don't support mandating it.
> If someone doesn't rank an option I'd rather accept a ballot than reject
> it.
> If someone wrote a
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:57:27PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> I've discussed with another Front Desk member about adding a question on
> our voting system in the nm templates.
>
> The idea being to make sure if people have questions, they get some
> answers, and otherwise relevant
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
Adrian> My suggestion would help people to make full use of their
Adrian> vote by forcing them to rank all options.
Adrian> Equal ranking is still possible, it would not remove your
Adrian> freedom to rank any number of options equally.
I'd
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:27:28PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk [2021-04-11 20:53]:
>...
> > It can be hard to vote correctly in a voting system that is very
> > different from what you are used to in real life, unless you are
> > a nerd in voting systems.
> If you ask me as someone
* Adrian Bunk [2021-04-11 20:53]:
I am not saying people were stupid.
Okay, that was hyperbolic. But you have to admit that you don't seem to
put much confidence in people's ability (or willingness) to read the
explanations that come with each ballot. I am by no means a voting
system nerd and
Le dimanche 11 avril 2021 à 20:53:33+0300, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 06:50:36PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> >
> > Besides, I am still unconvinced and mildly offended by the assumption
> > that people who voted 1--- were too stupid to do it right.
> >...
>
> I am not
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 06:50:36PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
>
> Besides, I am still unconvinced and mildly offended by the assumption
> that people who voted 1--- were too stupid to do it right.
>...
I am not saying people were stupid.
It can be hard to vote correctly in a voting system
* Adrian Bunk [2021-04-11 19:06]:
Such a change would not remove any voting options since votes
like 1--- have equivalent espressions like 1222.
I disagree. Not on theoretical grounds, but if you assume that someone
votes 1--- because they are too lazy to read the instructions, how
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:51:26AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Hey Adrian,
Hi Barak,
> > When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
> > there are plenty of votes like
> > 1---
> >
> > It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
> > and that their ballot was
* Sam Hartman [2021-04-08 08:33]:
i think it's very presumptuous to assume anything about what someone
should have voted because all those combinations are reasonable.
And if anyone is really losing sleep over that question, they can still
ask those ten voters if they intended to vote for
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:00:45PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
>>> worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk writes:
I don't know.
I can totally believe that someone wouldn't quite have the stomach to
actually say that they prefer more discussion of systemd.
I actually think 1--- is a reasonable vote.
And yes, I understand you are not expressing a preference between
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:00:45PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
> > worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
> > understand how to
Hey Adrian,
> When looking at the tally of the latest systemd vote,[1]
> there are plenty of votes like
> 1---
>
> It is obvious what these voters wanted to express,
> and that their ballot was wrongly filled due to a
> lack of understanding how our voting system works.
That's really
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:30:01PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Instead of "attack surface" of a complicated system I would be more
> worried about the problem that a part of our electorate does not
> understand how to vote in a way that their ballot matches what
> they want to express.
>
> When
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>
> Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
> deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting
> system involves multiple levels (quorum, majority, ranking resolution)
> each with
Hi Simon,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 4:15 PM Simon Richter wrote:
>
> You are making two bold assumptions here: that the options are on a
> single one-dimensional axis
I don't think I said that—nor do I believe it. My question was about
the ballot, which more or less imposes a linear ranking.
>
Hi Felix,
On 05.04.21 15:35, Felix Lechner wrote:
When a center option is likely to fail our majority requirement [1]
should I rank preferable extreme choices above FD even if I am
strictly moderately inclined?
You are making two bold assumptions here: that the options are on a
single
"Barak A. Pearlmutter" writes:
> Let's say a cohort of voters prefers option APRICOT to option BANANA,
> but would like neither (FD) even better. However they are well aware
> that there's no way FD will win.
> It is possible that if they vote their true preference,
> FD > APRICOT > BANANA
>
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 06:35:52AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
>...
> would it be better for a voting system to
> quadruple-count, or otherwise strengthen, options voters rank in the
> middle—thereby recognizing that a compromise between two or more sides
> is always a prerequisite for peace?
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 04:26:25PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> For people living in a country like Germany where the shares of
> representation in parliament are based on the nationwide vote,
The Bundestagswahl is a weird combination of direct vote and
proportional vote with a minority blocking
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 02:34:28PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Le lundi 05 avril 2021 à 14:07:13+0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> > > Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
> > > deficiency
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:33 AM Barak A. Pearlmutter
wrote:
>
> Moving FD around in the
> ordering is an example of this, as is a quorum boycott.
When a center option is likely to fail our majority requirement [1]
should I rank preferable extreme choices above FD even if I am
strictly
Le lundi 05 avril 2021 à 14:07:13+0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> > Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
> > deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting
> > system involves
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:15:25PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Making a system more complicated to try and address a specific
> deficiency rarely reduces its attack surface. In this case, our voting
> system involves multiple levels (quorum, majority, ranking resolution)
> each with its
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 at 11:57, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > A possible solution is to drop the majority requirement
> > and have a quorum on the number of people that vote ...
>
> A quorum on the number of people who vote means that a vote
What you say is all correct, although I suppose people might be able
to get at least a rough poll of voter preferences if they actually
care. Assuming people don't know enough details about others'
preferences to vote strategically is basically security by obscurity
so I wouldn't want to rely upon
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>...
> A possible solution is to drop the majority requirement
> and have a quorum on the number of people that vote
>...
A quorum on the number of people who vote means that a vote against the
proposal counts for the quorum.
Assuming
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 12:47:58AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>...
> But the reason for yes/no is the majority requirement. In this GR
> all options have a majority ratio of 1. This means more people
> need to put the option above of FD than people who put the option
> below FD, or the option gets
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 09:45:15AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>
> Let's say a cohort of voters prefers option APRICOT to option BANANA,
> but would like neither (FD) even better. However they are well aware
> that there's no way FD will win.
>
> It is possible that if they vote their
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> There are 2 ways the FD option has an effect on the result.
> The first option is the quorum requirement. For a GR the quorum is
> 3*Q, which is around 47 for this vote. 3*Q people need to put the
> option above FD to meet the quorum, or the option is dropped.
> But the
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 10:20:15PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 09:49:01PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > > I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
> > > with FD.
Le dimanche 04 avril 2021 à 21:49:01+0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
> > with FD. It'd probably help.
>
> FD effectively is the same as "none of the
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 09:49:01PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
> > with FD. It'd probably help.
>
> FD effectively is the same as "none of the
On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
> with FD. It'd probably help.
FD effectively is the same as "none of the above".
You might believe that the subject is stupid and that the horse is dead
> "Timo" == Timo Röhling writes:
Timo> * Mathias Behrle [2021-04-03 10:22]:
>> [ ] Further discussion [ ] Do nothing, leave the question
>> unresolved [ ] None of the above
Timo> The way I see it, all these have the same consequence for a
Timo> vote (that is, none of
* Mathias Behrle [2021-04-03 10:22]:
[ ] Further discussion
[ ] Do nothing, leave the question unresolved
[ ] None of the above
The way I see it, all these have the same consequence for a vote (that
is, none of the other options is acceptable). The Constitution will
always permit another vote
Mathias Behrle writes:
> * Sam Hartman: " Re: What does FD Mean" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:53:05 -0400):
>
>> >>>>> "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle writes:
>>
>> >> But for a two option situation, option A do the thing
> With the use cases of GRs coming to my mind (I certainly forgot some) I would
> consider as useful to have the following standard options on each ballot:
>
> [... other options ... ]
>
> [ ] Further discussion
> [ ] Do nothing, leave the question unresolved
> [ ] None of the above
>
>
>
* Russ Allbery: " Re: Call for votes on «Statement regarding Richard Stallman's
readmission to the FSF board»" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:49:21 -0700):
> Mathias Behrle writes:
>
> > I consider the really great value of current option E that I can indeed
> > vote explicitely that nothing should be
* Sam Hartman: " Re: What does FD Mean" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 20:53:05 -0400):
> >>>>> "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle writes:
>
> >> But for a two option situation, option A do the thing and option
> >> B FD, FD probably does m
> "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle writes:
>> But for a two option situation, option A do the thing and option
>> B FD, FD probably does map to no fairly well.
Mathias> I would really like to avoid this situation, where FD is
Mathias> expected to leave room for such wide
* Pierre-Elliott Bécue: " Re: What does FD Mean" (Fri, 2 Apr 2021 23:29:58
+0200):
> > So, yeah, FD is complicated:-)
>
> I'd rather have a None of the Above default option all the time along
> with FD. It'd probably help.
+1
--
Mathias Behrle ✧ Debian De
* Sam Hartman: " What does FD Mean" (Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:57:28 -0400):
> >>>>> "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle writes:
>
> Mathias> I don't get that. Is this really common sense that FD
> Mathias> means/meant "preserve status
Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 16:57:28-0400, Sam Hartman a écrit :
> > "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle writes:
>
> Mathias> I don't get that. Is this really common sense that FD
> Mathias> means/meant "preserve status quo"? For me voting this
> Mathias> option definitely should mean
> "Mathias" == Mathias Behrle writes:
Mathias> I don't get that. Is this really common sense that FD
Mathias> means/meant "preserve status quo"? For me voting this
Mathias> option definitely should mean that further discussion on
Mathias> the topic is needed.
So, that is
52 matches
Mail list logo
