On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I urge you to consider language which allows the ftp archive maintainers
> distribute non-free software from debian mirrors should they deem this a
> good idea. Specifically, one which aligns with the ideals expressed in:
> http://list
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:39:49PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> I urge you to consider language which allows the ftp archive maintainers
> distribute non-free software from debian mirrors should they deem this a
> good idea. Specifically, one which aligns with the ideals expressed in:
> http://list
> > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > concurrently.
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll give it very serious consideration, but first I would like some
> g
> > If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended. There
> > would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> > concurrently.
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll give it very serious consideration, but first I would like some
> g
> > 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 Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> If my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, no you shouldn't, because you're increasingly likely to end up
> > with the default option winning,
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:47:04AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >> If my true preference is CABD, I should vote CADB or even CDAB. I
> On Nov 1, 2003, at 10:27, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, no you shouldn't, because you're increasingly likely to end up
> > with the default option winning,
> you wrote (25 May 2003):
> > On the other hand, if you could show that the May 15 mechanism
> > violates monotonicity, then I'd be opposed to it.
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 06:21:13PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote:
> Situation 1:
>Default option: A,Quorum: 30.
>40 ACB,32 BAC,28 CB
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 11:52:46AM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote:
> There is only one election.
This seems to contradict what you said in your 5/24 message:
Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose candidate E. In the next
elections, when candidate E is the default option, Manoj's
May 15 propo
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 05:24:59PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Imagine a vote along the lines of:
> 100 ballots of the form:
>[1] Red,[ ] Blue,[ ] Default
>
> 100 ballots of the form:
>[1] Red,[ ] Blue,[1] Default
>
> 25 ballots of the form:
>[ ] Red,[1] Blue,[
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:26:49AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> instead, the per-option quorum will throw out the IDW in favour of a
> less-favoured option due to quorum requirements.
Exactly.
For example: Ballot contains A, B and default option D.
Quorum is 10.
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:53:33AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> thus, in the case of a single voter AGAINST the default option, the
> default option wins. this is not very likely, but this is also the case.
You can't vote against the default option -- you vote against something
by submitti
> > I've always taken it to mean "ignoring the slight possibility that
> > people who have voted didn't mean what they said".
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 08:02:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am not sure that the possibility is slight, really.
Oh? In the elections you have details on,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:24:10AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I think we are loosing the track again. What is the problem you are
> trying to solve here? I think that your draft in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was really ok.
Hmm... that says
< If there are defeats between options in the Schwar
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:56:03AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It doesn't. Once defeats are dropped, they are *entirely* irrelevant to
> the vote, and it's utterly useless to have terms that refer to them.
That's true.
However, it may be that Manoj is concerned that once the transitive
defeat i
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:14:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Glad to see you are back. Want to take over the stewardship of
> this GR again?
I'll be happy to contribute, as I can, but I don't want to get in the
way, and I can't guarantee that I'll be able to put as much time into
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:14:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Glad to see you are back. Want to take over the stewardship of
> this GR again?
I'll be happy to contribute, as I can, but I don't want to get in the
way, and I can't guarantee that I'll be able to put as much time into
18 matches
Mail list logo
