On Sun, 18 Apr 2021, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7
> and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any
> reason for someone to rank them very differently.
7 was a decision to not issue a statement ["There's no
Bernd Zeimetz write:
> Then don't say that.
> We have a defined method of voting, and if people don't like the results:
> there are procedures to change the voting method, the constitution and other
> things. After that you could even start a new GR. Complaining about the
> voting system because
Neil McGovern wrote...
> For info, we use cloneproof Schwartz sequential dropping to resolve
> these ties. The simple version is that we work out the cycle, and then
> drop the lowest margin, in this case the 1, so "Debian will not issue a
> pubilc statement" would still win.
>
> A full
On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 20:30 +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>
> But from a Press Release point of view, it would be pretty darn
> awkward to say "The Debian Project has voted and chosen OPTION ALPHA.
> It is true that a majority of the voters actually preferred OPTION
> BETA to OPTION ALPHA.
The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of breed. But
there's an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out.
If we look at the actual ballots, it's really interesting. Options 7
and 8 were semantically pretty much equivalent. It's hard to see any
reason for someone
* Roberto C. Sánchez [2021-04-18 16:10]:
3:1 majority
That would put a public statement on par with a change in the
Constitution, which is a political statement in itself.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭╮
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 11:13:15PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> * Roberto C. Sánchez [2021-04-18 16:10]:
> > However, that seems likely to only work if there is a method for
> > drafting the statement first and then simply having an up or down vote.
> No, because we have a ranking vote, where the
* Roberto C. Sánchez [2021-04-18 16:10]:
However, that seems likely to only work if there is a method for
drafting the statement first and then simply having an up or down vote.
No, because we have a ranking vote, where the majority is defined as the
ratio of voters who prefer an option to the
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 04:10:42PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:02:46PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> > * Barak A. Pearlmutter [2021-04-18 20:30]:
> > > I'm suggesting that, since we came within a razor (just ONE BALLOT, as
> > > Adrian Bunk pointed out) of that
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>>...
>>...
>> If that arrow had been reversed (which
>> could be done by switching the order of two adjacent options on TWO
>> BALLOTS)
>>...
>
> On one ballot.
>
> Which brings us back to my suggestion
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:02:46PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> * Barak A. Pearlmutter [2021-04-18 20:30]:
> > I'm suggesting that, since we came within a razor (just ONE BALLOT, as
> > Adrian Bunk pointed out) of that situation actually occurring, we get
> > in front of things, think about it,
* Barak A. Pearlmutter [2021-04-18 20:30]:
I'm suggesting that, since we came within a razor (just ONE BALLOT, as
Adrian Bunk pointed out) of that situation actually occurring, we get
in front of things, think about it, and figure out something proactive
to prevent it from ever actually
How you can credibly blame the FSF to have kept secret the process of RMS
reinstatement, when you are the first asking to keep secret the votes in regard
of this stupid GR ? You should select better the DPL the next time, pushing
a such divisive GR in freeze time was a very bad decision for
Sure, if an element of a cycle must be picked then our voting system
does have a way of picking one, unless there's a perfect tie. (And the
details are really interesting if, like me, you're into that sort of
thing.)
But from a Press Release point of view, it would be pretty darn
awkward to say
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>...
>...
> If that arrow had been reversed (which
> could be done by switching the order of two adjacent options on TWO
> BALLOTS)
>...
On one ballot.
Which brings us back to my suggestion that we should make ranking all
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 07:17:18PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> > If the winning option in an election is part of a preference cycle,
> > then it (by definition) has the property that there exists some other
> > option that a
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> If the winning option in an election is part of a preference cycle,
> then it (by definition) has the property that there exists some other
> option that a majority of the voters preferred. In some elections that
> is
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> I hope it is on-topic here to note that options 1, 3, and 4 formed a
> Condorcet preference cycle. So these *do* occur in the wild! And not
> for low-ranked obscure options either.
>
> The winning option 7 has an arrow with a
I hope it is on-topic here to note that options 1, 3, and 4 formed a
Condorcet preference cycle. So these *do* occur in the wild! And not
for low-ranked obscure options either.
The winning option 7 has an arrow with a 1 on it to option 4, which is
as razor-thin as you can get. If that arrow had
Hi,
The results of the General Resolution is:
Option 7 "Debian will not issue a public statement on this issue"
The details of the results are available at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002
Kurt Roeckx
Debian Project Secretary
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
The winner of the election is Jonathan Carter.
The details of the results are available at:
https://vote.debian.org/2021/vote_001
Stats for the DPL votes:
|--+--++---++-++---|
| | Num || Valid | Unique | Rejects | % |
21 matches
Mail list logo
