Re: supermajority options

On Nov 19, Raul Miller wrote: > Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority: > > [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is > required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly > simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:45:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > What are we doing in all these discussions if it isn't "bargaining"? Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people see in your proposal a

Re: Another proposal.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > And hopefully we wouldn't > stay in a state of frustration or anger for the whole 3 weeks. Hahahaha. Cheers, aj, now _that's_ an amusing joke -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't speak for a

Re: A modest request

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:30:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > For those of us that haven't followed the discussions about new voting > methods closely throughout their long history, and aren't fluent in the > philosophies and merits of the different options, I'd find it very helpful > if someone

Re: supermajority options

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:49:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not? > > > > > > I'd say this is addressed by our NM system. > > > > Are you claiming that NM is our only criteria for determining relevant > > competence on all issues? On Fri, Nov 22,

Re: supermajority options

> > Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated > > the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain > > actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all > > options the same, and therefore lose neutrality. On Fri, Nov 22, 2002

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum, On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:14:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Can you elaborate on this, please? Ok... They're not voting strategies in the classic sense, sin

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> We've already seen what is probably insincere voting in the Branden> DPL elections (a lot of people ranked the default option Branden> second, which means "my guy or nobody" -- I doubt any *two* Branden> of the candidates pro

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum, Can you elaborate on this, please? -- G. Branden Robinson|I'm sorry if the following sounds Debian GNU/Linux |combative and

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:49:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not? > > > > I'd say this is addressed by our NM system. > > Are you claiming that NM is our only criteria for determining relevant > competence on all issues? What do you propose? Isn't t

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:45:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > What are we doing in all these discussions if it isn't "bargaining"? Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people see in your proposal a

Re: Another proposal.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:29:40PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > And hopefully we wouldn't > stay in a state of frustration or anger for the whole 3 weeks. Hahahaha. Cheers, aj, now _that's_ an amusing joke -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't speak for a

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated > the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain > actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all > options the same,

Re: A modest request

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:30:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > For those of us that haven't followed the discussions about new voting > methods closely throughout their long history, and aren't fluent in the > philosophies and merits of the different options, I'd find it very helpful > if someone

Re: supermajority options

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:49:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not? > > > > > > I'd say this is addressed by our NM system. > > > > Are you claiming that NM is our only criteria for determining relevant > > competence on all issues? On Fri, Nov 22,

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:53:48PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > [6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used > to change the constitution or social contract. We could use > something like: every voter may just say "yes" or "no" to the > proposed change (i.e. t

Re: supermajority options

> > Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated > > the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain > > actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all > > options the same, and therefore lose neutrality. On Fri, Nov 22, 2002

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum, On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:14:48PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Can you elaborate on this, please? Ok... They're not voting strategies in the classic sense, sin

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> We've already seen what is probably insincere voting in the Branden> DPL elections (a lot of people ranked the default option Branden> second, which means "my guy or nobody" -- I doubt any *two* Branden> of the candidates pro

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum, Can you elaborate on this, please? -- G. Branden Robinson|I'm sorry if the following sounds Debian GNU/Linux |combative and

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:49:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not? > > > > I'd say this is addressed by our NM system. > > Are you claiming that NM is our only criteria for determining relevant > competence on all issues? What do you propose? Isn't t

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated > the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain > actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all > options the same,

Re: supermajority options

Hi, Jochen Voss: > * If we really would want to cover the case of several >competing proposals we could use a two step mechanism: we >could first determine a candidate via Condorect voting with >CpSCC (without any supermajority stuff) and then use [6] the >decide whether we want t

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:53:48PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > [6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used > to change the constitution or social contract. We could use > something like: every voter may just say "yes" or "no" to the > proposed change (i.e. t

Re: supermajority options

Hi, Branden Robinson: > > Yes. Anything more than half is "most", by definition. > Not in my book. Sorry. > consensus >n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: {general >agreement}] > The dictionary where you found that definition needs to be taken out

Re: supermajority options

> If we would require a quorum (in the sense of Anthony Towns draft, > i.e. we would require some minimal total number of votes) INSTEAD > of a supermajority, I would like this: On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:36:27PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > 1) Implementing a quorum seems to have a lower risk of da

Re: supermajority options

Hello, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority: > [1] ... [5] I did not think much about this until now. But what do you think about [6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used t

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:04:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement > (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which changes > the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more severe for > our current set of d

Re: A modest request

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:30:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > 1. Why are we doing this? What are the problems that we hope to solve? > What are some examples of this? The description of the voting system in the current constitution is kind of broken. For one there is the spelling mistake "Conc

Re: supermajority options

Raul Miller wrote: > > I'm assuming that we can describe an implementation of supermajority > with CpSSD where supermajority does not encourage insincere voting. WRT changes to the Constitution, a Tyrrany of the Status Quo may not be a bad thing. my sole purpose in bringing up the study was to ma

Re: A modest request

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:30:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > 1. Why are we doing this? What are the problems that we hope to solve? > What are some examples of this? We ran into conflicting interpretations of our current constitution when discussing how to vote on some issues related to non-f

Re: supermajority options

Hello, On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > As to why I prefer (2) over the rest... CpSSD is well-defined and > reasonably well studied when all votes are counted equally. I find the > idea of scaling votes involving particular options to change it enough > that its

Re: Nov 19 draft of voting amendment

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:24:59PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > if the Default Option is something other that Further Discussion or > Forget We Ever Had This Vote, then i cannot agree. The Constitution defines the default option as either 'Further Discussion' [decision votes] or 'None of t

Re: supermajority options

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least > > > half of the voting populous. > > > > [1] Who is the voting populous? > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:11:12PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > d

Re: supermajority options

Hi, Jochen Voss: > * If we really would want to cover the case of several >competing proposals we could use a two step mechanism: we >could first determine a candidate via Condorect voting with >CpSCC (without any supermajority stuff) and then use [6] the >decide whether we want t

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences) > > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me. > > Er.. are you suggesting we s

A modest request

Hello, For those of us that haven't followed the discussions about new voting methods closely throughout their long history, and aren't fluent in the philosophies and merits of the different options, I'd find it very helpful if someone could post some simple answers to these questions by the time

Re: supermajority options

Hi, Branden Robinson: > > Yes. Anything more than half is "most", by definition. > Not in my book. Sorry. > consensus >n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: {general >agreement}] > The dictionary where you found that definition needs to be taken out

Re: Nov 19 draft of voting amendment

Jochen Voss wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > 2. If fewer ballots are received than the required quorum for > > the vote, the default option is declared the winner. > This is a version of quorum I could happily live with. provided

Re: Nov 19 draft of voting amendment

Hello, On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > 2. If fewer ballots are received than the required quorum for > the vote, the default option is declared the winner. This is a version of quorum I could happily live with. > 3. If a majority of N:1 is requir

Re: Another proposal.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences) > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me. Er.. are you suggesting we squelch debate on supermajority? None of the additions were "random". They wer

Re: supermajority options

> If we would require a quorum (in the sense of Anthony Towns draft, > i.e. we would require some minimal total number of votes) INSTEAD > of a supermajority, I would like this: On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 11:36:27PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > 1) Implementing a quorum seems to have a lower risk of da

Re: supermajority options

Raul Miller wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change. > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least > > half of the voting populous. >

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:56:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > By the way, guys, it's spelled "populace". > > "Populous" is an adjective meaning "highly populated". Thanks, that's not something I would have looked up on my own. > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not? > > I'd say t

Re: supermajority options

Hello, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority: > [1] ... [5] I did not think much about this until now. But what do you think about [6] We could introduce a second kind of vote, which is exclusively used t

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > the whole supermajority thing i feel would make people vote insincerely. > the ony way to avoid it, as i see it, is to _remove entirely_ the Quorum > and Supermajority requirements. Just to repeat myself: I would suppor

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:15:45PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Except I have not found the paper to be convincing; I think >> that the underlying assumptions are about mechanisms that are far >> different from ours, and

Re: supermajority options

Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:39:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions May (1952) shows that majority rule is the only positively responsive voting rule that satisfies anonymity (all voters are trea

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:04:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement > (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which changes > the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more severe for > our current set of d

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:15:45PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Except I have not found the paper to be convincing; I think > that the underlying assumptions are about mechanisms that are far > different from ours, and that this difference is enough to invalidate > the conclusion reach

Re: A modest request

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:30:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > 1. Why are we doing this? What are the problems that we hope to solve? > What are some examples of this? The description of the voting system in the current constitution is kind of broken. For one there is the spelling mistake "Conc

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:23:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change. > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at

Re: supermajority options

Raul Miller wrote: > > I'm assuming that we can describe an implementation of supermajority > with CpSSD where supermajority does not encourage insincere voting. WRT changes to the Constitution, a Tyrrany of the Status Quo may not be a bad thing. my sole purpose in bringing up the study was to ma

Re: A modest request

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:30:16PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > 1. Why are we doing this? What are the problems that we hope to solve? > What are some examples of this? We ran into conflicting interpretations of our current constitution when discussing how to vote on some issues related to non-f

Re: supermajority options

Hello, On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > As to why I prefer (2) over the rest... CpSSD is well-defined and > reasonably well studied when all votes are counted equally. I find the > idea of scaling votes involving particular options to change it enough > that its

Re: Nov 19 draft of voting amendment

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:24:59PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > if the Default Option is something other that Further Discussion or > Forget We Ever Had This Vote, then i cannot agree. The Constitution defines the default option as either 'Further Discussion' [decision votes] or 'None of t

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:39:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions > >May (1952) shows that majority rule is the only positively >responsive voting rule that satisfies anonymity (all voters are >treated equally) and

Re: supermajority options

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least > > > half of the voting populous. > > > > [1] Who is the voting populous? > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:11:12PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > d

Re: supermajority options

Branden Robinson wrote: > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change. On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least > half of the voting populous. [1] Who is the voting populous?

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences) > > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me. > > Er.. are you suggesting we s

A modest request

Hello, For those of us that haven't followed the discussions about new voting methods closely throughout their long history, and aren't fluent in the philosophies and merits of the different options, I'd find it very helpful if someone could post some simple answers to these questions by the time

Re: Nov 19 draft of voting amendment

Jochen Voss wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > 2. If fewer ballots are received than the required quorum for > > the vote, the default option is declared the winner. > This is a version of quorum I could happily live with. provided

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:06:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> I think this is not really a matter of screwing up, this is a >> matter of, in some cases, avoiding the tyranny of the majority; Branden> ...a platitude di

Re: Nov 19 draft of voting amendment

Hello, On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > 2. If fewer ballots are received than the required quorum for > the vote, the default option is declared the winner. This is a version of quorum I could happily live with. > 3. If a majority of N:1 is requir

Re: Another proposal.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences) > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me. Er.. are you suggesting we squelch debate on supermajority? None of the additions were "random". They wer

Re: supermajority options

Raul Miller wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change. > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least > > half of the voting populous. >

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:56:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > By the way, guys, it's spelled "populace". > > "Populous" is an adjective meaning "highly populated". Thanks, that's not something I would have looked up on my own. > > [3] Is competence an issue? Why or why not? > > I'd say t

Re: Another proposal.

Hello, On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > the whole supermajority thing i feel would make people vote insincerely. > the ony way to avoid it, as i see it, is to _remove entirely_ the Quorum > and Supermajority requirements. Just to repeat myself: I would suppor

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:06:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I think this is not really a matter of screwing up, this is a > matter of, in some cases, avoiding the tyranny of the majority; ...a platitude directly rebutted by the paper to which John Robinson linked. > My conten

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:15:45PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> Except I have not found the paper to be convincing; I think >> that the underlying assumptions are about mechanisms that are far >> different from ours, and

Re: supermajority options

Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:39:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions May (1952) shows that majority rule is the only positively responsive voting rule that satisfies anonymity (all voters are treated equa

Re: supermajority options

>>"John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4wJT-1c0FykC:www.democ.uci.edu/democ/papers/McGann02.pdf+condorcet+supermajority&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions May (1952) shows that

Re: supermajority options

>>"Anthony" == Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Anthony> On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 12:03 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: >> I suggest you ask the Project Secretary's opinion before pursuing this >> line of reasoning too far (7.1.3). Anthony> If the secretary doesn't chime i

Re: supermajority options

Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement > > (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which > > changes the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more > > severe for our current set of developers than that of any

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: >> [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is >> required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly >> simple mathemati

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> It does? Having a General Resolution on hold for over two Branden> years "works"? You are blaming the process not working because gecko was in charge to a fault in the process? manoj -- Chicago Tr

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 01:15:45PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Except I have not found the paper to be convincing; I think > that the underlying assumptions are about mechanisms that are far > different from ours, and that this difference is enough to invalidate > the conclusion reach

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:23:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change. > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:04:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is > > > required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly > > > simple mathematica

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:39:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions > >May (1952) shows that majority rule is the only positively >responsive voting rule that satisfies anonymity (all voters are >treated equally) and

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > Unlike Branden, I would like some issues to be hard to change -- things > like the Social Contract and the DFSG. I think it's one of Debian's > strenghts that we take a principled stand, and have not waivered on > those principles (

Re: supermajority options

Branden Robinson wrote: > > Supermajority requirements don't retard mistakes, just change. On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:04:10PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > i tend to agree with the philosophy that you need to convince at least > half of the voting populous. [1] Who is the voting populous?

Re: Another proposal.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:57:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:48:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I don't understand, then. When have we ever had a non-election vote > > where the winning option *did* defeat the first runner-up by a 2:1 > > margin, let alone 3:1.

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:06:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> I think this is not really a matter of screwing up, this is a >> matter of, in some cases, avoiding the tyranny of the majority; Branden> ...a platitude di

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:06:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I think this is not really a matter of screwing up, this is a > matter of, in some cases, avoiding the tyranny of the majority; ...a platitude directly rebutted by the paper to which John Robinson linked. > My conten

Re: supermajority options

>>"John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4wJT-1c0FykC:www.democ.uci.edu/democ/papers/McGann02.pdf+condorcet+supermajority&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Interesting. However, that paper makes a number of assumptions May (1952) shows that

Re: supermajority options

>>"Anthony" == Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Anthony> On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 12:03 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: >> I suggest you ask the Project Secretary's opinion before pursuing this >> line of reasoning too far (7.1.3). Anthony> If the secretary doesn't chime i

Re: supermajority options

Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement > > (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which > > changes the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more > > severe for our current set of developers than that of any

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: >> [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is >> required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly >> simple mathemati

Re: supermajority options

>>"Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Branden> It does? Having a General Resolution on hold for over two Branden> years "works"? You are blaming the process not working because gecko was in charge to a fault in the process? manoj -- Chicago Tr

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:04:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is > > > required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly > > > simple mathematica

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > Unlike Branden, I would like some issues to be hard to change -- things > like the Social Contract and the DFSG. I think it's one of Debian's > strenghts that we take a principled stand, and have not waivered on > those principles (

Re: Another proposal.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:57:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:48:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > I don't understand, then. When have we ever had a non-election vote > > where the winning option *did* defeat the first runner-up by a 2:1 > > margin, let alone 3:1.

Re: supermajority options

Raul Miller wrote: Once that definition is made to my satisfaction, I like this option, or one of these two variants: [2a] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn't meet supermajority. Default option (Further Discussion) wins by default. New election to be held after appropriate discuss

Re: supermajority options

Raul Miller wrote: Once that definition is made to my satisfaction, I like this option, or one of these two variants: [2a] Discard the result if the CpSSD winner doesn't meet supermajority. Default option (Further Discussion) wins by default. New election to be held after appropriate discussi

Re: Nov 19 draft of voting amendment

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:55:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 05:24:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > 3. If a majority of N:1 is required for an option A, and V(A,D) > > is less than or equal to N * V(D,A), then A is dropped from > > consideration. If a simp

Re: supermajority options

On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 12:03 PM, Branden Robinson wrote: Arguably, if the system you have mostly works (which it apparently does), It does? Having a General Resolution on hold for over two years "works"? It mostly works, in the sense that we have one of the best --- if not the