On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:06:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> So if for example 4 members of the TC would say "only systemd is an
> acceptable choice", and the other 4 members of the TC would say "only
> upstart is an acceptable choice", then any result other than "further
> discussion" wo
On 2 February 2014 04:05, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 17:10 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Sébastien Villemot writes ("Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
>> > P1: DT > UT > DL > UL
> So his example was one where the D/U and L/T ch
On Sat, 2014-02-01 at 17:10 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Sébastien Villemot writes ("Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> > P1: DT > UT > DL > UL
> > P2: DL > UL > DT > UT
> > P3: UT > UL > DL > DT
> > P4: UT > UL > DL
Sébastien Villemot writes ("Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> P1: DT > UT > DL > UL
> P2: DL > UL > DT > UT
> P3: UT > UL > DL > DT
> P4: UT > UL > DL > DT
This is a nice example which actually demonstrates why these questions
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If this actually becomes the case, we can vote again, or change our
> votes. Burying will be pretty obvious in this case, after all.
Scratch what I said.
Given that there isn't actually a potential compromise winner in this
case, or anyone who has expre
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> With only two realistic options (systemd / upstart), this problem
> doesn’t exist. But introducing more options on the ballot, it becomes
> possible to obtain a rigged outcome. The vote being public, it is all
> the more easier to see how you should ra
Josselin Mouette writes:
>> == optional rider M (Multiple init systems) ==
>>
>>Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
>>foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
>>and code remain healthy.
>>
>>Where feasible, software should interoperate
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:02:21PM +0100, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> Le vendredi 31 janvier 2014 à 11:55 +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
> >
> > Hi Josse
On 31/01/14 14:02, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> the reason of the victory of upstart in this hypothetical
> vote is that systemd proponents prefer to lose on the coupling question
> rather than on the init system question
If having systemd is still a preference despite the outcome of the other
ques
On 31/01/14 14:02, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> P1: DT > UT > DL > UL
> P2: DL > UL > DT > UT
> P3: UT > UL > DL > DT
> P4: UT > UL > DL > DT
> Of course, in the alternative scenario with two consecutive ballots (one
> on the init, followed by one on the coupling), it would not have been
> possible
Hi Neil,
Le vendredi 31 janvier 2014 à 11:55 +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
> I'm not sure what you mean here, could you care to elaborate?
Wikipedia has
Le vendredi 31 janvier 2014 à 11:55 +, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
>
> Hi Josselin,
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here, could you care to elaborate?
Here
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Given the Condorcet voting method is susceptible to tactical voting,
Hi Josselin,
I'm not sure what you mean here, could you care to elaborate?
Neil
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Le jeudi 30 janvier 2014 à 14:40 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> D DM U UM O OM V VM GR and of course FD
[snip text for 10 different options]
> == optional rider M (Multiple init systems) ==
>
>Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
>foreseeable future, and so long as
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> On 2014-01-30 15:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > == optional rider M (Multiple init systems) ==
> >
> >Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
> >foreseeable fu
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> So if we assume that upstart wins, would it be acceptable to depend on
> systemd (or vice versa)? We might then get a set called, say, Unity,
> depending on upstart and one called, say, GNOME, depending o
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> On 2014-01-30 15:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Our voting system (Condorcet with "Schwartz Cloneproof Sequential
> > Dropping") is designed to cope with that. In actual practice I'm
> &g
On 2014-01-30 15:47, Ian Jackson wrote:
== optional rider M (Multiple init systems) ==
Debian intends to support multiple init systems, for the
foreseeable future, and so long as their respective communities
and code remain healthy.
Where feasible, software should interoperate with
On 2014-01-30 15:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
Our voting system (Condorcet with "Schwartz Cloneproof Sequential
Dropping") is designed to cope with that. In actual practice I'm
expecting to have a single Condorcet winner in which case
splitting/joining options is totally irrelevant.
I really hope yo
Steven Chamberlain writes ("Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft"):
> On 30/01/14 14:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > D DM U UM O OM V VM GR and of course FD
> >
> > I think we can probably leave out one of each of O OM V VM. If anyone
> > has a preference for
On 30/01/14 14:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
> D DM U UM O OM V VM GR and of course FD
>
> I think we can probably leave out one of each of O OM V VM. If anyone
> has a preference for O and V over OM and VM please say so.
Couldn't it bias the outcome if votes might otherwise have been split
between O
Ian Jackson writes ("TC resolution revised draft"):
> I'm going to follow up in a moment with a formal action to propose
> a resolution, starting the constitutional discussion period.
I hereby formally propose what I have called UM (text below).
I also hereby formally propose DM as an amendment,
Ian Jackson writes ("TC resolution revised draft"):
> For the GR rider I used the version from my previous standalone
> proposal. I see Bdale has a different text in git. I'll discuss that
> in a moment.
I see that Bdale has his own draft in git.
The differences are:
* My GR rider is differen
I have taken Bdale's text, reformatted it a bit, and added the GR
rider and the multiple init systems rider texts.
For the GR rider I used the version from my previous standalone
proposal. I see Bdale has a different text in git. I'll discuss that
in a moment.
For the multiple init systems ride
24 matches
Mail list logo
