Re: Micros*ft deal
El jue, 21-06-2007 a las 21:40 +0200, Robert Millan escribió: I believe our silence says it all, no? If they want to donate us money for no 'carte blanche' back good, Their donations are welcome, their deals aren't. In fact, we could even lose our permission to use GPLv3 software if we did that. otherwise I don't think it's worth write a PR and help them spread their FUD, IMHO. On the contrary; the objective would be to dismiss their FUD. The basic problem is that since GPLv3 has been yet released, we are releasing de-facto GPLv3 software, in every piece licensed as GPL v2 or any later. I can be using a ig chunk of Debian as GPLv3, and nobody can dismiss this right now. -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Micros*ft deal
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:03:03AM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: El jue, 21-06-2007 a las 21:40 +0200, Robert Millan escribió: I believe our silence says it all, no? If they want to donate us money for no 'carte blanche' back good, Their donations are welcome, their deals aren't. In fact, we could even lose our permission to use GPLv3 software if we did that. otherwise I don't think it's worth write a PR and help them spread their FUD, IMHO. On the contrary; the objective would be to dismiss their FUD. The basic problem is that since GPLv3 has been yet released, we are releasing de-facto GPLv3 software, in every piece licensed as GPL v2 or any later. I can be using a ig chunk of Debian as GPLv3, and nobody can dismiss this right now. There are software in main that can be distributed under non-free licenses too. What's the problem ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7 [was Re: Social committee proposal]
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:27:00PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: Just nitpicking, but is our Condorcet method for running election suitable for voting when an (ordered) set of result is expected? Isn't it targeted at finding only one winner (if it exists)? Not a big It's targeted to finding the one winner, but it's easy to adapt to finding a list: get the winner, then remove it from the list of options and get the new winner, then remove it from the list of options and get the new winner, etc. I never proposed that, for reasons made obvious by other people in the thread. My ammendment to the standard resolution procedure was this: + li If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners is +created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength. Instant disclaimer - I don't know if this is clear enough, I don't know voting method syntax. The point is that the list of options is *sorted*, and then N are taken as winners. It's not run in a loop of N iterations. And by sorted I mean the thing we get from the beat matrix, such as in: http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001#outcome If for example in that outcome we wanted to pick four candidates, it seems to me that they would be Hocever, McIntyre, Herzog, Verhelst. If for example we wanted to pick seven, we couldn't go past the first six. In that graph, no two options happened to be at the same horizontal level. If by any chance we got that situation, my ammendment further stated: +If there are multiple winners with the same ranking which exceed +the desired length of the list, the length of the list is extended +to include the entire last set of multiple winners. I thought that that made sense. Others? -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: + li If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners is +created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength. Why couldn't we just use some STV method for such elections? STV is a tried and proved method, no need for us to start inventing new methods. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 01:28:00PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Why couldn't we just use some STV method for such elections? STV is a tried and proved method, no need for us to start inventing new methods. Many of the tried and proved STV methods are faulty. (Perhaps not as faulty as iterating Condorcet, but still:) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 13:28:00 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: + li If the election requires multiple winners, the list of winners is + created by sorting the list of options by ascending strength. Why couldn't we just use some STV method for such elections? STV is a tried and proved method, no need for us to start inventing new methods. Most traditional STV methods suffer from free riding (in which strategic voting as in not voting for people who you want to vote for, but who will, in your opinion, win anyway) and vote management. There is a modified STV method, that also satisfies the condorcet method, and falls back to our current mechanism for a single winner. Our current method has been demonstrated to satisfy Pareto, monotonicity, resolvability, independence of clones, reversal symmetry, Smith-IIA, Schwartz, Woodall's plurality criterion, and Woodall's CDTT criterion, etc. I think we should consider the paper pointed out by Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, found at http://m-schulze.webhop.net/schulze2.pdf manoj -- There are no saints, only unrecognized villains. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:17:27 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: In other words, we share a common technical culture. This is not the case for social culture of the community; and this distinction would tend to make a difference, in my opinion. Well, we discussed it in private at DebConf (when I lost my live in an assassin attack ;-)). I wonder in how far you think different cultural aspects are regarded if there is no social committee at all. Not very much, if at all, I would imagine. So we have the choice to do either nothing against social problems in Debian or just give a soc-ctte a chance to try - your comments about the cultural diversion might be a helpful guideline here - but in my opinion no argument against a soc-ctte. Why does everyone see any discussion at all in the mailing list a binary, either-or, confrontational debate? I am not talking about _not_ having a soc-ctte. I am talking about whether or not the selection criteria for ctte members needs to be looked at with due consideration to the cultural diversity. Based on recent conversation in the list, I would suggest that the proportionality criteria for party list selection be given emhpasis for electing the members, so the minority cultures do not fail to have representation on the ctte, drowned our by the dominant cultural subgroups. manoj ps: is it so hard to believe that people who actually want to improve a proposal are not all rah-rah cheer leaders for the idea? Or that all skeptics are not locked in a life-or-death struggle to scuttle the proposal? -- Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Range Voting - the simpler better alternative to Condorcet voting
Sam Hocevar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 15, 2007, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: You make another point, which is interesting, but which actually when carried to its logical conclusion ends up being in support of Range Voting over Condorcet. If you continue with the logic asking what happens when Range Voting voters vote strategically, you find that in Range Voting where all voters are well informed of the opinions of the electorate in general, and all voters cast optimal strategic ballots, you get approval voting, which results in ... the winner being what would have been the winner of a 100% honest Condorcet election. Unless you can tell us how to be well informed of the opinions of the Debian electorate in general, especially with ballots that go beyond yes/no questions, yet still want to make a point about the Debian voting system, you should not use that assumption in your reasoning. I don't really understand your point here. Under any particular set of symmetric assumptions people have made, Range Voting seems to perform better than Condorcet. These are practical assumptions, rather than theoretical ones. Like: everyone tries to vote honestly. Or: some people try to vote honestly others try to vote strategically using whatever information they know. Etc. One limiting case of this is where people think they know who the front runners are, and many people vote to try to get their preferred candidate elected. This is behavior you might expect in practice, right? Under those conditions, Range Voting performs well, and Condorcet runs into horrible problems. In fact, when people think they know who the front runners are and are correct, RV with highly strategic voters leads to electing the honest Condorcet winner! That shows how very robust RV is to strategic voting. Unlike Condorcet, which basically falls apart when people act like ... well, like people. Certain situations are more mathematically tractable and easier to explain than others. That is why I talked about that particular limiting situation in the message you responded to: because it is easy to see what's going on, and it is interesting. Not because only under *those* assumptions does RV beat Condorcet. In fact, under all realistic conditions I've seem discussed, RV seems to beat Condorcet. But if you have some other actual specific situation in mind where you think Condorcet would perform well relative to RV, then let's hear it! (The only situation in which Condorcet beats RV proposed in the discussion so far is: RV voters voting strategically vs Condorcet voters voting honestly. When pressed as to why this startling asymmetry would arise, it's because someone official tells the voters---incorrectly---that they'd hurt themselves by voting strategically with Condorcet. That is a pretty outlandish assumption, and basically goes against human nature: it assumes people won't often try their best to get their favored candidate elected. And it sort of contradicts itself, in that the official instructions to voters says something untruthful in order to obtain a better global outcome. In other words the official instructions to voters are themselves strategic rather than honest! And for some reason, the same strategic instructions to be honest aren't given with RV. And even under this very silly assumption, Condorcet only beats RV by a tiny bit.) -- Barak A. Pearlmutter Hamilton Institute Dept Comp Sci, NUI Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland http://www.bcl.hamilton.ie/~barak/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract ten years on July 5 -- celebration?
On ti, 2007-06-26 at 20:54 +, Lars Wirzenius wrote: The Debian Social Contract 1.0 was ratified on July 5, 1997. That's ten years ago, about ten days from now. Anybody else interested in celebrating this a bit? What would be an appropriate way? After some discussion on two Finnish Debian IRC channels, we decided to have a distributed pancake party, and beers in a bar afterwards. http://wiki.debian.org/SocialContractTenYears is the co-ordination page. Other countries are, obviously, more than welcome to join in the fun! -- Sadly, our technology is insufficiently advanced. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: message from Sven Luther
Le samedi 30 juin 2007 à 10:58 +0100, MJ Ray a écrit : Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 15:51 +0200, Robert Millan a écrit : Sven also told me that if nobody will forward it, he will make it by the slashdot way. We don't negociate with terrorists. That's daft. If you leave people with no outlet, they will explode and it will be messy. Anyway, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. When they are being reasonable enough for you, reward them with negotiation and encourage them to be more reasonable. Otherwise, shut them down as much as possible and hope the explosions will be seen as unreasonable, but don't try to spin the people as unreasonable, else the backlash makes it less likely to be seen that way. My Opinion Only, as ever. I have spent a lot of time trying to help Sven Luther negociate, but that was at times where he *was* reasonable. Not threatening to make it by the slashdot way. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, MJ Ray wrote: Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] So we have the choice to do either nothing against social problems in Debian or just give a soc-ctte a chance to try [...] That's a false dilemma. For example, I suggested letting email lists (suffering most badly ATM) promote their own admins in http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/06/msg00258.html It's not soc-ctte or nothing! We could take smaller steps first! Sounds like out of context quoting. My post was about regarding cultural aspects of soc-ctte. I wonder if you think that list master intervention might serve cultural aspects better than a soc-ctte. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: So we have the choice to do either nothing against social problems in Debian or just give a soc-ctte a chance to try - your comments about the cultural diversion might be a helpful guideline here - but in my opinion no argument against a soc-ctte. Why does everyone see any discussion at all in the mailing list a binary, either-or, confrontational debate? I admit my posting sounded a little bit binary - but it was not intended to be that way. Even if I would consider myself as one of the first ones who brought up this idea I'm not really convinced that it is an appropriate mean to solve our problems. But for the moment I do not see a suggestion that sounds more promissing. I am not talking about _not_ having a soc-ctte. I am talking about whether or not the selection criteria for ctte members needs to be looked at with due consideration to the cultural diversity. I'm afraid that we will have not enough volunteers from different cultures. Moreover it is hard to separate between different cultures. There is no sharp borderline between cultures and there are people who belong to more than one culture. So this is a quite weak criterium to choose members for a soc-ctte from. I think I understood perfectly your concerns - but I see no practical solution. I just hope that a soc-ctte that is elected according to the rules we mentioned will be able to understand social aspects that are brought up by a person who has the kind of trouble you have in mind. Based on recent conversation in the list, I would suggest that the proportionality criteria for party list selection be given emhpasis for electing the members, so the minority cultures do not fail to have representation on the ctte, drowned our by the dominant cultural subgroups. Just for the sake of interest: What would you say to which cultural group you would belong? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
