Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Neil McGovern]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 06:34:41PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
> have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
> see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
> for this one.
> 

> [1] Dec 14 23:24:34 wren postfix/smtp[10681]: 1216131437A: 
> to=, 
> relay=master.debian.org[70.103.162.29]:25, delay=6.7, 
> delays=2.3/0.02/3.5/0.79, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 OK id=1LC50U-0004Tc-EZ)

Hi Joey,

The logs on master match with this, except that you're 5 hours behind
UTC, so your vote was received by master at Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:24:34
+.

Apologies for any confusion,

Neil
-- 
* stockholm bangs head against budget
 outsch
 h01ger: it is still very soft, i did not hurt myself
 stockholm: But you bled on the budget, and now it's red again!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Joey Hess]

aj wrote:
>   Joey Hess

Hmm, I have the ballot (3341) that I sent in on Dec 14th right here. I
have logs indicating it got to master[1] half an hour before deadline. I
see I got an ACK for the other ballot, sent at the same time, but not
for this one.

Anyway, it's always interesting to see your vote analysis. Managing to
make this vote actually mean something is quit an accomplishment.

-- 
see shy jo

[1] Dec 14 23:24:34 wren postfix/smtp[10681]: 1216131437A: 
to=, relay=master.debian.org[70.103.162.29]:25, 
delay=6.7, delays=2.3/0.02/3.5/0.79, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 OK 
id=1LC50U-0004Tc-EZ)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:54:30PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
> > (or at least I) mightn't expect.
> > ...
> >   Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation
> I'm not too surprised by this. 

I'd hope you wouldn't be surprised by how you voted... :)

> I think it's entirely logically
> consistent to second something then vote against it. Seconding an option
> (particularly an amendment) just means "I think this should be voted on"
> not "I'm going to vote for it". 

That's what it means to the person doing it, and to people who follow
-vote.  When you haven't followed -vote, and are trying to grok some
options based on the vote.d.o page and the post to d-d-a, you tend to
go by who proposed/seconded the proposals. When the RMs names appear,
eg, that tends to add weight to a proposal, as does having seconds from
a bunch of people you know of and don't think are daft.

Fortunately it's still a somewhat accurate measure, so it doesn't tend to
completely misinform DDs who don't follow -vote, #debian-devel, etc and
have to use that sort of heuristic to be even moderately informed, but it
seems useful to keep track of just how far off heuristics like that are.

There are probably ways to improve the vote.d.o page so that people less
engrossed in the process can be better informed, but until that happens,
we've got what we've got...

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Russ Allbery]

Lucas Nussbaum  writes:
> On 15/12/08 at 15:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I suspect this is because the obvious "please, dear deity, stop talking
>> about things constantly and just do them" vote ranks 3 above 2 above 1,
>> so I doubt many votes transferred from 3 to 1 when 3 was eliminated.

> There's no such transfer in plurality voting (where you only vote for
> one option). That transfer happens in instant-runoff voting, but I
> didn't compare our condorcet results with IRV results. That's not easy
> to do accurately because you can't rank several options at the same
> level with IRV, so you would have to ignore a lot of ballots.

I suspect I confused things by not being sufficiently clear.  I meant that
the difference between the Condorcet outcome and the plurality outcome was
probably due to the 3>2>1 voting pattern leading to a lot of transfers
from 3 to 2 in Condorcet, so although 1 wins plurality, 2 ends up with
more preference votes once 3 is eliminated.

(And by choice 2, I mean the one listed as choice 2 on the voting page,
which is shown first before choice 1 and is also known as amendment A.)

It's the standard case for Condorcet producing a different outcome than
plurality: the compromise is less popular by itself, but is much more
popular with a minority of the voters who would prefer some other choice.
It happens quite a bit in Hugo voting (IRV, if I recall correctly), where
the leader in first place votes often doesn't win.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 15/12/08 at 15:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum  writes:
> 
> > Thank you for the detailed analysis.
> >
> > You missed one point:
> > Excluding votes where more than one
> > option were ranked first, and counting only first choices, we get the
> > following results:
> > Option 1: 93
> > Option 2: 90
> > Option 3: 61
> > Option 4: 12
> > "Invalid" votes (more than one first choice): 20
> >
> > So, using plurality voting, we would have had a different result than
> > the one we had with condorcet. This is actually quite rare: it
> > happened with the debian-private declassification vote in 2005 (option 1
> > was the plurality winner), and in the 2003 DPL election (Branden
> > Robinson was the plurality winner).
> 
> I suspect this is because the obvious "please, dear deity, stop talking
> about things constantly and just do them" vote ranks 3 above 2 above 1, so
> I doubt many votes transferred from 3 to 1 when 3 was eliminated.

There's no such transfer in plurality voting (where you only vote for
one option). That transfer happens in instant-runoff voting, but I
didn't compare our condorcet results with IRV results. That's not easy
to do accurately because you can't rank several options at the same
level with IRV, so you would have to ignore a lot of ballots.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Matthew Johnson]

On Tue Dec 16 06:55, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
> (or at least I) mightn't expect.
> ...
>   Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation

I'm not too surprised by this. I think it's entirely logically
consistent to second something then vote against it. Seconding an option
(particularly an amendment) just means "I think this should be voted on"
not "I'm going to vote for it". In particular the ones I seconded I
definitely thought they should both be options on the ballot, even
though I didn't vote for one of them.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Russ Allbery]

Lucas Nussbaum  writes:

> Thank you for the detailed analysis.
>
> You missed one point:
> Excluding votes where more than one
> option were ranked first, and counting only first choices, we get the
> following results:
> Option 1: 93
> Option 2: 90
> Option 3: 61
> Option 4: 12
> "Invalid" votes (more than one first choice): 20
>
> So, using plurality voting, we would have had a different result than
> the one we had with condorcet. This is actually quite rare: it
> happened with the debian-private declassification vote in 2005 (option 1
> was the plurality winner), and in the 2003 DPL election (Branden
> Robinson was the plurality winner).

I suspect this is because the obvious "please, dear deity, stop talking
about things constantly and just do them" vote ranks 3 above 2 above 1, so
I doubt many votes transferred from 3 to 1 when 3 was eliminated.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 16/12/08 at 06:55 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:22:06PM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
> > The winners are:
> >   Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus,
> > leading to a new proposal."
> 
> which, aiui was the original resolution, namely:
> [...]

Thank you for the detailed analysis.

You missed one point:
Excluding votes where more than one
option were ranked first, and counting only first choices, we get the
following results:
Option 1: 93
Option 2: 90
Option 3: 61
Option 4: 12
"Invalid" votes (more than one first choice): 20

So, using plurality voting, we would have had a different result than
the one we had with condorcet. This is actually quite rare: it
happened with the debian-private declassification vote in 2005 (option 1
was the plurality winner), and in the 2003 DPL election (Branden
Robinson was the plurality winner).
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Jurij Smakov]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 06:55:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...] 
> Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
> (or at least I) mightn't expect.
[...]
>   Jurij Smakov - voted the amendment over the original resolution

Not sure how it became an amendment, but option 1 was, essentially, 
the proposal which I (and other people) have initially seconded:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/10/msg00168.html

Best regards,
-- 
Jurij Smakov   ju...@wooyd.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/  KeyID: C99E03CC


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:22:06PM +, devo...@vote.debian.org wrote:
> The winners are:
>   Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus,
> leading to a new proposal."

which, aiui was the original resolution, namely:

The Debian Project recognizes that many contributors to the project
are not working withing established frameworks of Debian and thus are
not provided by the project with as much help as might be possible,
useful or required, nor opportunities to join the project.

We thank Joerg Jaspert for exploring ideas on how to involve
contributors more closely with and within the project so that they
can get both recognition and the necessary tools to do their work.

We realize that the proposal posted to the debian-devel-announce
mailinglist is not yet finalized and may not have the support
of a large part of our community. We invite the DAM and all thee
contributors to further develop their ideas in close coordination
with other members of the project, and to present a new and improved
proposal on the project's mailinglists in the future.

Significant changes should only be implemented after consensus
within the project at large has been reached, or when decided by a
general resolution.

That the original resolution got to be choice 2 seems completely bizarre
to me, but whatever.

Looking through the actual votes, it seems somewhat reasonable to collect
them into about seven groups:

  a) "consensus before implementation" - 191 votes

(everyone who voted either or both option 1 or 2 above option
 3 and FD, and didn't either option 1 or 2 below option 3)

  b) "implementation now seems good, but consensus is fine too" - 40 votes

(everyone who voted option 3 highest, and either or both of options
 1 or 2 above further discussion)

  c) "implement it now and stop talking about it" - 21 votes

(everyone who voted option 3 highest, and both options 1 and 2 equal
 or below further discussion)

  d) "this vote/these options suck" - 13 votes

(everyone who voted further discussion first)

  e) "consensus w/thanks, or implementation, but don't just delay" - 8 votes

(everyone who put option 2, option 3, option 1)

  f) "consensus, or implement, but no thanks" - 2 votes

(everyone who put option 1, then 3, then 2)

  g) "i abstain" - 2 votes

(Robert Millan and Mark Hymers)

The most common voting patterns were:

   2143 - 53 votes (a)
   1243 - 53 votes (a)
   1342 - 17 votes (a)
   3214 - 17 votes (b)
   1132 - 12 votes (a)
   2134 - 11 votes (a)
   2314 - 10 votes (b)
   2212 -  9 votes (c)

(note "2212" above, includes equivalent votes like "--1-" and "4414",
etc; the (a),(b),(c) reflects which group I categorised them into above)

Of the various people involved in the topic, many voted in ways you
(or at least I) mightn't expect.

Seconds of the original (and winning) resolution:

  Remi Vanicat - didn't vote
  Luca Filipozzi - didn't vote

  Robert Millan - abstained

  Frans Pop - voted the amendment over the original resolution
  Jurij Smakov - voted the amendment over the original resolution
  Pierre Habouzit - voted the amendment over the original resolution
  Raphael Hertzog - voted the amendment over the original resolution

  Amaya Rodrigo Sastre - voted the amendment, then further discussion
  Nico Golde - voted the amendment, then further discussion

  Colin Tuckley - voted for implementation

Interestingly Philipp Kern apparently seconded the original proposal
twice, at #10 and #18... Anyway, counting him just once, that leaves 11 of
the 21 people who proposed/seconded the original resolution voting it #1.

The proposer/seconds of the two amendments ("postpone until
vote/consensus" and "implement") were exactly the same, which presumably
doesn't give much indication on what their intentions were. In the end:

  Lucas Nussbaum - voted to postpone
  Raphael Hertzog - voted to postpone
  Stefano Zacchiroli - voted to postpone

  Damyan Ivanov - voted for implementation
  Matthew Johnson - voted for implementation

  Margarita Manterola - voted the original proposal first

Possibly interesting votes by various position holders (where ""
means "didn't vote", and going from www.d.o/intro/organization for who
holds what positions):

  DPL:
 4132 Steve McIntyre

  New-maintainer:
 --1- Christoph Berg (FD,DAM)
  Michael Koch (FD)
 123- Wouter Verhelst (FD)
 --12 Joerg Jaspert (DAM)
  James Troup (keyring)
  Jonathan McDowell (keyring)

  Debian maintainer keyring team:
  Joey Hess
 1342 Anthony Towns
 1342 Anibal Monsalve Salazar
  Debian maintainer keyring team, additional commit access:
 --1- Christoph Berg (FD,DAM)
 --12 Joerg Jaspert (DAM)
  James Troup (keyring)
  Ryan Murray (ftpmaster)
 2143 Marc Brockschmidt (ex

Re: Results for Project membership procedures

[Cyril Brulebois]

devo...@vote.debian.org  (15/12/2008):
> digraph Results {
>   ranksep=0.25;
>  "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.\n4.49" [ 
> style="filled" , fontname="Helvetica", fontsize=10  ];
>  "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.\n4.49" -> 
> "Further Discussion" [ label="164" ];
>  "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new 
> proposal.\n4.27" [ style="filled" , color="powderblue", shape=egg, 
> fontcolor="NavyBlue", fontname="Helvetica", fontsize=10  ];
>  "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new 
> proposal.\n4.27" -> "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or 
> consensus.\n4.49" [ label="13" ];
>  "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new 
> proposal.\n4.27" -> "Further Discussion" [ label="160" ];
>  "Ask the DAMs to implement the changes.\n0.51" [ style="filled" , 
> color="pink", shape=octagon, fontname="Helvetica", fontsize=10  ];
>  "Further Discussion" -> "Ask the DAMs to implement the changes.\n0.51" [ 
> label="85" ];
>  "Further Discussion" [ style="filled" , shape=diamond, fontcolor="Red", 
> fontname="Helvetica", fontsize=10  ];
> }

For those of you who aren't used to graphviz, you can render the graph
using: dot -Tpng results.dot -o results.png

Works with s/png/svg/g as well.

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Results for Project membership procedures

[devotee]

Greetings,

This message is an automated, unofficial publication of vote results.
 Official results shall follow, sent in by the vote taker, namely
Debian Project Secretary

This email is just a convenience for the impatient.
 I remain, gentle folks,

Your humble servant,
Devotee (on behalf of Debian Project Secretary)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Starting results calculation at Mon Dec 15 13:17:34 2008

Option 1 "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus."
Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to 
a new proposal."
Option 3 "Ask the DAMs to implement the changes."
Option 4 "Further Discussion"

In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that
option x received over option y.

  Option
  1 2 3 4 
===   ===   ===   === 
Option 1  112   195   211 
Option 2125 194   209 
Option 3 7165  88 
Option 4 4749   173   



Looking at row 2, column 1, Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or 
consensus, leading to a new proposal.
received 125 votes over Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or 
consensus.

Looking at row 1, column 2, Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or 
consensus.
received 112 votes over Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or 
consensus, leading to a new proposal..

Option 1 Reached quorum: 211 > 47.8591684006314
Option 2 Reached quorum: 209 > 47.8591684006314
Option 3 Reached quorum: 88 > 47.8591684006314


Option 1 passes Majority.   4.489 (211/47) >= 1
Option 2 passes Majority.   4.265 (209/49) >= 1
Dropping Option 3 because of Majority. 
(0.5086705202312138728323699421965317919075)  0.509 (88/173) < 1


  Option 2 defeats Option 1 by ( 125 -  112) =   13 votes.
  Option 1 defeats Option 4 by ( 211 -   47) =  164 votes.
  Option 2 defeats Option 4 by ( 209 -   49) =  160 votes.


The Schwartz Set contains:
 Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, 
leading to a new proposal."



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The winners are:
 Option 2 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, 
leading to a new proposal."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

-- 
The voters have spoken, the bastards... --unknown
DEbian VOTe EnginE
digraph Results {
  ranksep=0.25;
 "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.\n4.49" [ 
style="filled" , fontname="Helvetica", fontsize=10  ];
 "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.\n4.49" -> 
"Further Discussion" [ label="164" ];
 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new 
proposal.\n4.27" [ style="filled" , color="powderblue", shape=egg, 
fontcolor="NavyBlue", fontname="Helvetica", fontsize=10  ];
 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new 
proposal.\n4.27" -> "Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or 
consensus.\n4.49" [ label="13" ];
 "Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new 
proposal.\n4.27" -> "Further Discussion" [ label="160" ];
 "Ask the DAMs to implement the changes.\n0.51" [ style="filled" , 
color="pink", shape=octagon, fontname="Helvetica", fontsize=10  ];
 "Further Discussion" -> "Ask the DAMs to implement the changes.\n0.51" [ 
label="85" ];
 "Further Discussion" [ style="filled" , shape=diamond, fontcolor="Red", 
fontname="Helvetica", fontsize=10  ];
}


pgpGb092nywTK.pgp
Description: PGP signature