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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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.
12 matches
Mail list logo
