Buddha Buck said:
>The proposers of this amendment also feel that it is worthy to drop
>from consideration any other option that is not approved by a minimum
>number of voters
Incidentally, this is by *far* the most controversial aspect of the
amendment. This mechanism causes the "Condorcet winn
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:26:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Incidentally, this is by *far* the most controversial aspect of the
> amendment. This mechanism causes the "Condorcet winner"/"ideal
> democratic winner" to lose under certain contrived circumstances. (They
> are rather contriv
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:03:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> For some reason, some people think that quorum should be assessed after
> the vote and should be used to toss the vote if not enough votes were
> received. That has bad properties which can discourage some voters when
> participation i
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:42:32AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:03:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > For some reason, some people think that quorum should be assessed after
> > the vote and should be used to toss the vote if not enough votes were
> > received. That ha
Hi,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> What's wrong with "classic quorum" though? Why is your method superior?
Clasic quorum (10): Nine people show up, all of them vote for the resolution,
the motion fails because of unmet quorum.
Person #10 shows up and votes against the resolution, the motion now succee
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 11:27 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
may be in your best interest to *not* vote on a particular issue if
turnout is low,
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:26:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Buddha Buck said:
> > or has more not-approved votes than approved votes. Only
> >votes that have a minimum number of approved votes and are approved by
> >more people than don't approve it are considered in the cSSD process.
>
>
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:38:54 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 11:27 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>
>> In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended
>> period and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum
>> m
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
> and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
> may be in your best interest to *not* vote on a particular issue if
> turnout is low, in
Hi,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I heard that new Australian citizens
> are told that their two responsibilities as Australian citizens are
> jury duty and voting.
>
No paying taxes? Cool! ;-)
> I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Personally, I'd rather have ten voters who are inter
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
> > and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
> > may be in your b
On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 09:14 US/Eastern, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
Is this idea abhorrent to USAns?
Yep.
I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Yep, unless you're willing to do something like "either vote or you're
not a
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
>
> Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
> *good* thing? If I'm not
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:58:33AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
> > Why would rendering us una
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> and such a lack of interest should be given appropriate consideration.
but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a l
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:23:28PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> > *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> > and such a lack of interest should be given appropria
> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have said lack of interest
Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
> John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
> John> are worried about?
>
> Before I thought about voting, I
Sam Hartman wrote:
"John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would
> "Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Buddha> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response t
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:36:23AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
> Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
> *good* thing?
You can't actively block a vote using the quorum mechanism. If you want
to do that, you nee
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:47:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> and such a lack of interest should be given appropriate consideration.
> Requiring uninter
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:58:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> To be honest I wonder if this GR is only going to pass because of
> indifference. I wonder how many developers have actually read
> through the GR and understand it. I'm amazed at how little
> explanation there has bee
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> To be honest I wonder if this GR is only going to pass because of
> indifference. I wonder how many developers have actually read through
> the GR and understand it. I'm amazed at how little explanation there has
> been aimed at the
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:24:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The idea is that non-voting geeks don't need to care about this
> vote, anyway. All of the changes we're making are procedural, not
> structural. Both the quorum changes and the supermajority changes should
> have the same result as t
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:25:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:58:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > To be honest I wonder if this GR is only going to pass because of
> > indifference. I wonder how many developers have actually read
> > through the G
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
>> modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have any
>> influence on how things are done -- we are supposed to be the
> How much effort do yo
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt
Manoj> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
>>> modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:52:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
> >> modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have any
> >> influence
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
> some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
> the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
> are trying to convinc
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the
>> proponents of some option to do a fair bit of the work
>> necessary to provide me with the inform
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 17:56:02 -0400, Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents
>>> of some option to do a f
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
> some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
> the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
> are trying to convinc
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
> > some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
> > the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
> > are trying
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 07:53:54PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On a related note, I'm a little bothered about the result. Obviously
> 144:16 was a win. But only 160 people voted, at most 20% of developers and
> probably more like 15%.
Huh? From http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0002,
] Q
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:52:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > It seems that you think anyone who hasn't followed the discussion
> > for the past year doesn't deserve a vote.
>
> No. Anyone who does not have a clue about what is going on
> does not deserve a say in the decision.
Tha
Buddha Buck said:
>The proposers of this amendment also feel that it is worthy to drop
>from consideration any other option that is not approved by a minimum
>number of voters
Incidentally, this is by *far* the most controversial aspect of the
amendment. This mechanism causes the "Condorcet winn
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:26:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Incidentally, this is by *far* the most controversial aspect of the
> amendment. This mechanism causes the "Condorcet winner"/"ideal
> democratic winner" to lose under certain contrived circumstances. (They
> are rather contriv
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:03:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> For some reason, some people think that quorum should be assessed after
> the vote and should be used to toss the vote if not enough votes were
> received. That has bad properties which can discourage some voters when
> participation i
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:42:32AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:03:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > For some reason, some people think that quorum should be assessed after
> > the vote and should be used to toss the vote if not enough votes were
> > received. That ha
Hi,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> What's wrong with "classic quorum" though? Why is your method superior?
Clasic quorum (10): Nine people show up, all of them vote for the resolution,
the motion fails because of unmet quorum.
Person #10 shows up and votes against the resolution, the motion now succee
On Friday, Jun 13, 2003, at 11:27 US/Eastern, Steve Langasek wrote:
In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
may be in your best interest to *not* vote on a particular issue if
turnout is low,
That's
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:26:57PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Buddha Buck said:
> > or has more not-approved votes than approved votes. Only
> >votes that have a minimum number of approved votes and are approved by
> >more people than don't approve it are considered in the cSSD process.
>
>
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
> and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
> may be in your best interest to *not* vote on a particular issue if
> turnout is low, in
Hi,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> I heard that new Australian citizens
> are told that their two responsibilities as Australian citizens are
> jury duty and voting.
>
No paying taxes? Cool! ;-)
> I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Personally, I'd rather have ten voters who are inter
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period
> > and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it
> > may be in your b
On Wednesday, Jun 18, 2003, at 09:14 US/Eastern, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
Is this idea abhorrent to USAns?
Yep.
I suppose it would be unworkable for Debian though.
Yep, unless you're willing to do something like "either vote or you're
not a DD anymo
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:58:33AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:23 -0500
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
> > Why would rendering us una
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> and such a lack of interest should be given appropriate consideration.
but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a l
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 12:23:28PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> > *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> > and such a lack of interest should be given appropria
Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
> John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
> John> are worried about?
>
> Before I thought about voting, I
Sam Hartman wrote:
"John" == John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> but is it a lack of interest in an issue at large, or a lack
John> of interest in a particular response to an issue that you
John> are worried about?
Before I thought about voting, I would have
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:36:23AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-|
> Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a
> *good* thing?
You can't actively block a vote using the quorum mechanism. If you want
to do that, you nee
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:47:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Enforced voting in order to ensure quorum is precisely an outcome I
> *don't* want. Lack of quorum indicates lack of interest in the issue,
> and such a lack of interest should be given appropriate consideration.
> Requiring uninter
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> To be honest I wonder if this GR is only going to pass because of
> indifference. I wonder how many developers have actually read through
> the GR and understand it. I'm amazed at how little explanation there has
> been aimed at the
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:24:41AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The idea is that non-voting geeks don't need to care about this
> vote, anyway. All of the changes we're making are procedural, not
> structural. Both the quorum changes and the supermajority changes should
> have the same result as t
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:25:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:58:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > To be honest I wonder if this GR is only going to pass because of
> > indifference. I wonder how many developers have actually read
> > through the G
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:52:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> I am pretty sure I do not want people who can't even spend a
> >> modicum of effort to learn about the issues at hand to have any
> >> influence
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
> some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
> the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
> are trying to convinc
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
> some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
> the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
> are trying to convinc
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Actually, I think it is reasonable for me to expect the proponents of
> > some option to do a fair bit of the work necessary to provide me with
> > the information I need to make an informed decision. After all they
> > are trying
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 07:53:54PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On a related note, I'm a little bothered about the result. Obviously
> 144:16 was a win. But only 160 people voted, at most 20% of developers and
> probably more like 15%.
Huh? From http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0002,
] Q
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 09:52:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > It seems that you think anyone who hasn't followed the discussion
> > for the past year doesn't deserve a vote.
>
> No. Anyone who does not have a clue about what is going on
> does not deserve a say in the decision.
Tha
63 matches
Mail list logo
