Sam Hartman wrote:
> it clearly would be an abuse if some privileged category of people got to
> choose the ballot options.
Hello Sam,
I'm struggling to understand your concern here.
Is it just an abstract concern or do you have in mind some specific
scenario in which that could happen?
As far
> "Bdale" == Bdale Garbee writes:
Bdale> Sam Hartman writes:
>> The math certainly helps. We can easily see that even if we
>> think that kind of strategic exploration is not an abuse, it
>> clearly would be an abuse if some privileged category of people
>> got to
Sam Hartman writes:
> The math certainly helps. We can easily see that even if we think that
> kind of strategic exploration is not an abuse, it clearly would be an
> abuse if some privileged category of people got to choose the ballot
> options.
The sensitivity of preference-based voting
> "Barak" == Barak A Pearlmutter writes:
Barak> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 16:57, Sam Hartman
wrote:
>> That's a big jump, and I don't think I agree. At least not when
>> you phrase it that way. Why should my preference matter less
>> just because it's weaker? It's still my
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 16:57, Sam Hartman wrote:
> That's a big jump, and I don't think I agree.
> At least not when you phrase it that way.
> Why should my preference matter less just because it's weaker? It's
> still my preference and I'm attached to it very much:-)
There are two ways to
> "Barak" == Barak A Pearlmutter writes:
Barak> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 16:35, Sam Hartman
wrote:
>> I think we need voting reform around how the amendment process
>> works and managing discussion time ... ... Preferences can be
>> of different strengths. Which is
Hi Bdale,
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:35:21AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> I admit to having really mixed feelings about whether Debian should
> *ever* make broad public statements about anything. So, no problem in
> my mind with making it harder for the project to do so.
One of the purposes
Le mardi 20 avril 2021 à 15:12:16+0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter a écrit :
> Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of
> perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
> But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to
> not use the full
Timo Röhling writes:
> * 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.
I admit to having really mixed feelings about whether Debian should
*ever* make broad public
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 07:20:48PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
> I did not want to spend time on figuring out if voting --- in
> our voting system is the same as not voting at all
Ranking all options the same has no effect on the result. It does
not have an effect on the quorum or
On 2021-04-20 18:12, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
Bernd, sometimes the devil is in the details, and that's certainly the
case with voting systems.
Why should I rank options if there is only a limited number of
options I care about, and the others are just equally bad
choices imho?
I feel like
Bernd, sometimes the devil is in the details, and that's certainly the
case with voting systems.
> Why should I rank options if there is only a limited number of
> options I care about, and the others are just equally bad
> choices imho?
I feel like we're sort of belaboring a point.
If someone
> "Jonas" == Jonas Smedegaard writes:
Jonas> Quoting Barak A. Pearlmutter (2021-04-20 16:12:16)
Jonas> Maybe it makes sense to e.g. add a friendly notice in the
Jonas> voting confirmation email when not all voting power is used.
Jonas> But there is already a lot of text
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 04:41:46PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Barak A. Pearlmutter (2021-04-20 16:12:16)
> > Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of
> > perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
> > But with all the ballots we can find a
On 2021-04-20 16:12, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of
perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to
not use the full power of the ballot in ways
Quoting Barak A. Pearlmutter (2021-04-20 16:12:16)
> Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of
> perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
> But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to
> not use the full power of the ballot in
Le mardi 20 avril 2021 à 12:50:25+0200, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> Quoting Philip Hands (2021-04-20 11:57:58)
> > Adrian Bunk writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > >>...
> > >> * The length of the discussion period is ill-defined in multiple ways,
Quoting Bernd Zeimetz (2021-04-20 15:26:06)
> On 2021-04-20 12:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
> > I genuinely think that more time preparing the ballot would have led
> > to fewer more well-written options on the ballot, and consequently a
> > higher likelihood that Debian would have decided
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
That's a very interesting idea. I wonder if we could elaborate upon it
to build a more expressive, and more robust, voting system.
Voting systems are heavily subject to the law of unintended consequences.
As someone who has studied voting
Maybe looking at options 7/8 wasn't the best example, both because of
perceived differences and because FD plays a special role.
But with all the ballots we can find a bunch of votes that do seem to
not use the full power of the ballot in ways that do seem a bit
counterintuitive.
Have a look for
On 2021-04-20 12:50, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I genuinely think that more time preparing the ballot would have led to
fewer more well-written options on the ballot, and consequently a
higher
likelihood that Debian would have decided to make a (more well-written)
statement instead of the
On 2021-04-18 23:18, 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.
Just because two votes are semantically equivalent it
Quoting Philip Hands (2021-04-20 11:57:58)
> Adrian Bunk writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>...
> >> * The length of the discussion period is ill-defined in multiple ways,
> >> which has repeatedly caused conflicts. It only resets on accepted
> >>
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>...
>> * The length of the discussion period is ill-defined in multiple ways,
>> which has repeatedly caused conflicts. It only resets on accepted
>> amendments but not new ballot options, which makes
Quoting Felix Lechner (2021-04-20 00:55:19)
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable.
>
> Aside from Bdale's reason for ranking unwanted options below FD—which
> were motivated by the voting
Felix Lechner writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>>
>> I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable.
>
> Aside from Bdale's reason for ranking unwanted options below FD—which
> were motivated by the voting system—I do: GRs do not
Le lundi 19 avril 2021 à 15:55:19-0700, Felix Lechner a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable.
>
> Aside from Bdale's reason for ranking unwanted options below FD—which
> were
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:40 PM Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>
> I don't understand how you semantically see 7 and 8 as comparable.
Aside from Bdale's reason for ranking unwanted options below FD—which
were motivated by the voting system—I do: GRs do not decide a matter
with prejudice, even
Le lundi 19 avril 2021 à 12:46:38-0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> "Barak A. Pearlmutter" writes:
>
> > Sam, you make an excellent point about gaps between options, and that
> > a ranking does not show the strength of preferences. Like, I might
> > prefer ALPHA >>> BETA > GAMMA while you prefer
Le dimanche 18 avril 2021 à 22:18:22+0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter a écrit :
> 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
"Barak A. Pearlmutter" writes:
> Sam, you make an excellent point about gaps between options, and that
> a ranking does not show the strength of preferences. Like, I might
> prefer ALPHA >>> BETA > GAMMA while you prefer ALPHA > BETA >>> GAMMA.
> So if it's down to ALPHA vs BETA, my vote should
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:32:40PM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> Sam Hartman writes:
> > For me though, even there, notice that we'd be choosing between options
> > that the voters considered acceptable.
> > Because of that, I am not bothered by the cycle.
>
> If the decision doesn't
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 16:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I think we need voting reform around how the amendment process works and
> managing discussion time ...
> ...
> Preferences can be of different strengths.
>
> Which is to say that the gaps between preferences might be relatively
> weak.
FWIW, I didn't consider 7 and 8 at all similar.
After watching the strain the pre-vote discussion introduced, I decided making
no statement as a project was the best outcome. But if the project were to
make a statement, I wanted to express preference between the acceptable to me
statements,
Sam Hartman writes:
> For me though, even there, notice that we'd be choosing between options
> that the voters considered acceptable.
> Because of that, I am not bothered by the cycle.
If the decision doesn't really matter but a non-FD option must be
chosen (like a hungry group picking a
> "Barak" == Barak A Pearlmutter writes:
Barak> The Schwartz set resolution algorithm is absolutely best of
Barak> breed. But there's an old saying in computer science: garbage
Barak> in, garbage out.
Barak> If we look at the actual ballots, it's really
Barak>
I'm writing to present an alternate interpretation--the one under which
I think our voting system is doing a good job of choosing among complex
ballots in the last couple elections.
I think we need voting reform around how the amendment process works and
managing discussion time, but I am very
Quoting Don Armstrong (2021-04-19 00:39:12)
> 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.
>
On 2021/04/18 23:36, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Complaining about the
> voting system because you don't like the outcome or because you could
> announce the outcome in an awkward way is not helpful.
Who complained about the voting system because they didn't like the
outcome of this particular vote?
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
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
58 matches
Mail list logo
