On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:22:50PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Why do you think that voting for "Remove non-free" means that we wouldn't
> > continue to produce a distribution? Why do you think that ballot would be
> > treated differently to:
> > [ ] Remove non-free?
> > [ ] Don't
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:39:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:
> > Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the archive,
> > and no longer supported by the Debian project.
> > or
> > Further, non-free and contrib shall continue to be
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:43:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:01:15AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
> > > landslide, woudn't that be a mandate
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
> >Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
> >produce a distribution."
> Huh? Do you me
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:18:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > In other words:
> > > [1] if the proposer of some ballot option chooses to ignore some popular
> > > amendment
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > "Popular" only in the sense that it express
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
>Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
>produce a distribution."
Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or replace
the text of t
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The draft so far adds no such proscription for the admins
> > (indeed, the whole point is to remove such a proscription).
>
> Yes. If the Social Contract
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:43:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:01:15AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
> > > landslide, woudn't that be a mandate
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
> >Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
> >produce a distribution."
> Huh? Do you me
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:18:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > In other words:
> > > [1] if the proposer of some ballot option chooses to ignore some popular
> > > amendment
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > "Popular" only in the sense that it express
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Consider the "amendment" (in name only),
>Replace lines ^ through $ with the words, "Debian should continue to
>produce a distribution."
Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or replace
the text of t
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:18:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The draft so far adds no such proscription for the admins
> > (indeed, the whole point is to remove such a proscription).
>
> Yes. If the Social Contract
> > In other words:
>
> > [1] if the proposer of some ballot option chooses to ignore some popular
> > amendment
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> "Popular" only in the sense that it expresses a view that is popular --
> not that the idea of replacing the ballot op
> > In other words:
>
> > [1] if the proposer of some ballot option chooses to ignore some popular
> > amendment
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 05:17:55PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> "Popular" only in the sense that it expresses a view that is popular --
> not that the idea of replacing the ballot op
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:28:33AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2003, at 02:45, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto?
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:31:20AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Because our voting system can only provide
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:58:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [3] The trivial "defense" against this "tactic" is to propose a new
> amendment that combines both the original option and this new option.
>
> This addresses the cases where the amendment is relevant and perhaps,
> in some people's ey
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:28:33AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
> I don't agree that this is a flaw in the voting system.
>
> If people want to play games, rather than work directly towards the
> best outcome, then the result will be an indirect approach towards the
> best outcome.
Okay, so in
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:54:32AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Indeed, from his comments, I think even the Branden might be happy with
> the two separated, as long as they are on two different ballots.
"'The' Branden"? I am syntactically rubbing shoulders with Donald Trump
now?
/me reels
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 10:28, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [2] (and chooses not to provide an option which includes the most
> > salient points of both),
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:45:33PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> You do realize that if we created a ballot with even 4 different
> orthogonal op
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:28:33AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2003, at 02:45, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto?
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:31:20AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Because our voting system can only provide
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:58:06AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> [3] The trivial "defense" against this "tactic" is to propose a new
> amendment that combines both the original option and this new option.
>
> This addresses the cases where the amendment is relevant and perhaps,
> in some people's ey
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:28:33AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
> I don't agree that this is a flaw in the voting system.
>
> If people want to play games, rather than work directly towards the
> best outcome, then the result will be an indirect approach towards the
> best outcome.
Okay, so in
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:54:32AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Indeed, from his comments, I think even the Branden might be happy with
> the two separated, as long as they are on two different ballots.
"'The' Branden"? I am syntactically rubbing shoulders with Donald Trump
now?
/me reels
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 10:28, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [2] (and chooses not to provide an option which includes the most
> > salient points of both),
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:45:33PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> You do realize that if we created a ballot with even 4 different
> orthogonal op
On Nov 2, 2003, at 10:28, Raul Miller wrote:
[2] (and chooses not to provide an option which includes the most
salient
points of both),
You do realize that if we created a ballot with even 4 different
orthogonal options with all combinations, our ballot would have 16[0]
options on it? Add
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:52:12 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:39, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Why are they not in seperate votes, which would be the proper
>> procedure?
> Because option B is an "amendment" of option A under A.1.1 and
> A.1.3.
On Nov 2, 2003, at 10:28, Raul Miller wrote:
[2] (and chooses not to provide an option which includes the most
salient
points of both),
You do realize that if we created a ballot with even 4 different
orthogonal options with all combinations, our ballot would have 16[0]
options on it? Add a fir
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 04:18:19 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It would mean people didn't want the Project compelled by its Social
> Contract to distribute non-free forever and ever.
> It wouldn't necessarily mean that the Project would think
> distributing non-free now *isn't*
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:54:32 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Whoa there. Some would consider that the editorial changes and
>> dropping section 5 are orthogonal changes, since we can have one,
>> or the other, or both,
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:52:12 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:39, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Why are they not in seperate votes, which would be the proper
>> procedure?
> Because option B is an "amendment" of option A under A.1.1 and
> A.1.3.
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 04:18:19 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It would mean people didn't want the Project compelled by its Social
> Contract to distribute non-free forever and ever.
> It wouldn't necessarily mean that the Project would think
> distributing non-free now *isn't*
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:54:32 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> Whoa there. Some would consider that the editorial changes and
>> dropping section 5 are orthogonal changes, since we can have one,
>> or the other, or both,
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:01:15AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
> > landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
> Would you be happy if Branden added a clause along the lines of:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:01:15AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
> > landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
> Would you be happy if Branden added a clause along the lines of:
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 02:45, Raul Miller wrote:
> > How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:31:20AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Because our voting system can only provide one winner, even when the
> options are orthogonal. So, a very popu
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 02:45, Raul Miller wrote:
> > How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:31:20AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Because our voting system can only provide one winner, even when the
> options are orthogonal. So, a very popu
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-31 13:16]:
> Informally, it appears to be the exclusive domain of the Debian
> Archive Administrators (who, the last time I checked, were not
> official delegates of the Debian Project Leader[1]).
Yes, ftpmaster is responsible for the archive and has
On Nov 2, 2003, at 02:45, Raul Miller wrote:
How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto?
Because our voting system can only provide one winner, even when the
options are orthogonal. So, a very popular option line "keep x86"
effectively veto's a less popular (but still
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:22:50AM -0500, I wrote:
> [1] I don't see that there's any reason at all to agree that voting
> "further discussion" on irrelevant amendments is an insincere choice.
>
> [2] I agree with Manoj, that if the secretary deems the ammendment to
> be orthogonal to the vote tha
On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the landslide just means people don't want to
loudly proclaim Debian's support of non-free software anymore?
On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Whoa there. Some would consider that the editorial changes
and dropping section 5 are orthogonal changes, since we can have one,
or the other, or both, and neither affects each other.
I would be one of them, and I think that if some
On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:39, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Why are they not in seperate votes, which would be the proper
procedure?
Because option B is an "amendment" of option A under A.1.1 and A.1.3.
On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:49, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No. It can cause C to win by removing A and B from the running for
no good reason. That's the problem.
Only if such ballots are deemed proper procedure.
A.3.1 seems to say they are:
Each resolution and its related amendmen
* Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-31 13:16]:
> Informally, it appears to be the exclusive domain of the Debian
> Archive Administrators (who, the last time I checked, were not
> official delegates of the Debian Project Leader[1]).
Yes, ftpmaster is responsible for the archive and has
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
> voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purpose of this
> ballot is to decid
On Nov 2, 2003, at 02:45, Raul Miller wrote:
How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto?
Because our voting system can only provide one winner, even when the
options are orthogonal. So, a very popular option line "keep x86"
effectively veto's a less popular (but still 3:1 s
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 08:22:50AM -0500, I wrote:
> [1] I don't see that there's any reason at all to agree that voting
> "further discussion" on irrelevant amendments is an insincere choice.
>
> [2] I agree with Manoj, that if the secretary deems the ammendment to
> be orthogonal to the vote tha
On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a
landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the landslide just means people don't want to
loudly proclaim Debian's support of non-free software anymore?
Wo
On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:51, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Whoa there. Some would consider that the editorial changes
and dropping section 5 are orthogonal changes, since we can have one,
or the other, or both, and neither affects each other.
I would be one of them, and I think that if someone propos
On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:39, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Why are they not in seperate votes, which would be the proper
procedure?
Because option B is an "amendment" of option A under A.1.1 and A.1.3.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EM
On Nov 1, 2003, at 23:49, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
No. It can cause C to win by removing A and B from the running for
no good reason. That's the problem.
Only if such ballots are deemed proper procedure.
A.3.1 seems to say they are:
Each resolution and its related amendments is voted on
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
> voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purpose of this
> ballot is to decid
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:45:52AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
> > proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
> > but uncontrove
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:08:49AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> A.2.3
> However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the
> Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4).
>
> A.3.4.
> In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
> procedure.
Okay. I'd like
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:04:52AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Actually, I misspoke:
Thanks for the clarification. Acknowledged.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it.
[EMAIL PRO
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:50:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:13:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I'm confused; you've been doing it so comprehensively in your
> > replies to my messages that I thought it was an accepted practice.
>
> I be
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Perhaps you could be a bit more thorough and post the message id of
> the message which presents the mechanism fully? [Or just restate the
> mechanism, in complete detail?]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debia
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:42:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:27:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:40 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > This requires either the original proposer, or a group of 6
>>
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:38:02 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:16:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > As I said to Raul:
>>
>> >[...] if the technique is consistently used, and people don't
>> >adapt their voting practices to compensate for
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:13:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Ah yes. The usual jump to conclusions about the motivations of the
>> people you are debating with, hoping they shall stop talking. Way
>> to go.
>
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:12:57 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:49:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:38:41 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > No. It can cause C to win by removing A and B from the runni
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The draft so far adds no such proscription for the admins
> (indeed, the whole point is to remove such a proscription).
Yes. If the Social Contract had a provision proscribing the Debian
Account Managers from disabling dev
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:45:52AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
> > proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
> > but uncontrove
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:49:47 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:08:49AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> A.2.3
> However, the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the
> Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4).
>
> A.3.4.
> In cases of doubt the Project Secretary shall decide on matters of
> procedure.
Okay. I'd like
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:04:52AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Actually, I misspoke:
Thanks for the clarification. Acknowledged.
--
G. Branden Robinson| Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it.
[EMAIL PRO
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:50:47AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:13:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I'm confused; you've been doing it so comprehensively in your
> > replies to my messages that I thought it was an accepted practice.
>
> I be
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:47:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:36:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
> > > > proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
> > >
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Perhaps you could be a bit more thorough and post the message id of
> the message which presents the mechanism fully? [Or just restate the
> mechanism, in complete detail?]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://lists.debian.org/debia
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:42:23 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:27:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:40 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > This requires either the original proposer, or a group of 6
>>
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:38:02 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:16:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > As I said to Raul:
>>
>> >[...] if the technique is consistently used, and people don't
>> >adapt their voting practices to compensate for
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:27:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > This requires either the original proposer, or a group of 6 people,
> > who support taking the original proposal and tacking this irrelevant
> > rid
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:16:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > As I said to Raul:
>
> > [...] if the technique is consistently used, and people don't
> > adapt their voting practices to compensate for it, that it
> > could result in zero progress in an infinite number of steps,
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:13:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Ah yes. The usual jump to conclusions about the motivations of the
>> people you are debating with, hoping they shall stop talking. Way
>> to go.
>
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:12:57 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:49:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:38:41 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > No. It can cause C to win by removing A and B from the runni
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The draft so far adds no such proscription for the admins
> (indeed, the whole point is to remove such a proscription).
Yes. If the Social Contract had a provision proscribing the Debian
Account Managers from disabling dev
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:49:47 -0500, Branden Robinson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:14:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It assumes the electorate is sheep.
>
> If you attach a non germane amendment to a GR with a stated
> name, people are going to vote against it -- unless they are dumb
> idiots.
Is it really necessary to call people
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 03:47:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:36:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
> > > > proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
> > >
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Ah yes. The usual jump to conclusions about the motivations of
> the people you are debating with, hoping they shall stop talking. Way
> to go.
I'm confused; you've been doing it so comprehensively in your replies to
my me
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:49:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:38:41 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > No. It can cause C to win by removing A and B from the running for
> > no good reason. That's the problem.
>
> Only if such ballots are
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:49:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Is it? Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and you
> >> are
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
> proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
> but uncontroversial cosmetic alterations?
Nothing.
At that point you have an amen
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:27:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:40 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > This requires either the original proposer, or a group of 6 people,
> > who support taking the original proposal and tacking this irrelevant
> > rid
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:28:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I merely wish to point out that our super-majority voting system is
> vulnerable to strategic voting and fails the Strong Defensive Strategy
> Criterion.
Well, it's possible that the Strong Defensive Strategy Criterion[1] was
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:16:39PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > As I said to Raul:
>
> > [...] if the technique is consistently used, and people don't
> > adapt their voting practices to compensate for it, that it
> > could result in zero progress in an infinite number of steps,
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:06:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:44:30 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > My thesis, as I unfortunately and apparently failed to make clear in
> > the original post, is that, given that we view as desirable the
> > prac
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:14:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It assumes the electorate is sheep.
>
> If you attach a non germane amendment to a GR with a stated
> name, people are going to vote against it -- unless they are dumb
> idiots.
Is it really necessary to call people
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Ah yes. The usual jump to conclusions about the motivations of
> the people you are debating with, hoping they shall stop talking. Way
> to go.
I'm confused; you've been doing it so comprehensively in your replies to
my me
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:49:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:38:41 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > No. It can cause C to win by removing A and B from the running for
> > no good reason. That's the problem.
>
> Only if such ballots are dee
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:01:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:49:47 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:40:21PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Is it? Sounds like you have a very short term viewpoint; and you
> >> are
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
> proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
> but uncontroversial cosmetic alterations?
Nothing.
At that point you have an amen
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:48:16PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You should read. Branden has been consistent in asserting that
> there are antisocial elements who vote insincerely to defeat the
> progressive chang4es forward looking noble developers make, but are
> constantly on the ve
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they
> weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not
> be case with the proposed GR, I don't claim to know) and went ahead
> anyway they would eithe
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:28:15PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I merely wish to point out that our super-majority voting system is
> vulnerable to strategic voting and fails the Strong Defensive Strategy
> Criterion.
Well, it's possible that the Strong Defensive Strategy Criterion[1] was
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:44:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> My thesis, as I unfortunately and apparently failed to make clear in the
> original post, is that, given that we view as desirable the practice of
> ranking one's ballot preferences sincerely, that there is a procedural
> mechanism
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:06:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:44:30 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > My thesis, as I unfortunately and apparently failed to make clear in
> > the original post, is that, given that we view as desirable the
> > prac
> >> No, it doesn't. My preferred option still has just as many votes over
> >> the default option.
> >
> > In other words, CD was your true preference. [Or, perhaps, CDAB.]
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:02:35PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> No, it isn't, as I explained in the rest of the messa
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:15:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I think it's the only formal or structural impediment, yes. But
>
> In which case this needs to be pointed out;
I thought it was common kno
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 06:04:55PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >>I think I just realized something... Due to the supermajority
> >>requirements, given my favorite ballot:
>
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
