Thue Janus Kristensen writes (Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and
later-no-harm):
I am not completely sure, but I think both ways accomplish the same thing,
if you always only use the = criterium.
My way seems more flexible though, since you can use it with = or , or
2/3 majority over
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:50:47PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
In my proposal, the casting voter gets to choose between A and B and
there less incentive to manipulate the system by voting FD.
I'm just wondering, what was the purpose behind treating FD as a special
case in the first place? Could
2014-02-28 17:50 GMT+01:00 Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
Thue Janus Kristensen writes (Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and
later-no-harm):
I am not completely sure, but I think both ways accomplish the same
thing,
if you always only use the = criterium.
Actually, they
Russ Allbery writes (Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm):
This change would also fix a different problem that came up during the
debate, namely one of the problems with the 2:1 majority required for a TC
override. Currently, if we have a general project vote on something on
I am not completely sure, but I think both ways accomplish the same thing,
if you always only use the = criterium.
My way seems more flexible though, since you can use it with = or , or
2/3 majority over FD requirement, and still get sane results.
I also think my way is simpler, from a
From that discussion (
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2013/05/msg00012.html ),
Michael Ossipoff mentions a similar solution for the beat default
criterium problem as my suggestion, except for a different voting system:
Do a rank-balloting among all of the options, with D as one of the
Hi,
Thue Janus Kristensen:
I don't know enough about Michael Ossipoff's suggested complete
change of voting system to have an opinion about that.
It's not a complete change. The basic Condorcet method is unchanged.
We merely change (fix?) what we do when there's no single winner.
I have to
Thue Janus Kristensen thu...@gmail.com writes:
So in the init system vote example with my rule modification, D, U and
FD would end up in the Schwartz set, Bdale would choose D, and the final
result would then be FD, because D doesn't beat FD. So this rule change
means that U cannot win
There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in
Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution
§A.6.3 [2].
The problem was visible in the recent CTTE init system vote, as noted by fx
Steve Langasek [3]. Given options
* systemd (D)
* upstart (U)
*
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 01:18:21PM +0100, Thue Janus Kristensen wrote:
There is what I consider an unnecessary problem with later-no-harm [1] in
Debian's use of the Condorcet voting method in the Debian Constitution
§A.6.3 [2].
This also reminded me of
Hallo,
the Condorcet criterion and the later-no-harm criterion
are incompatible. Therefore, the fact that Debian's Condorcet
method violates the later-no-harm criterion doesn't come
from the order of its checks.
Markus Schulze
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
Markus Schulze:
the Condorcet criterion and the later-no-harm criterion
are incompatible. Therefore, the fact that Debian's Condorcet
method violates the later-no-harm criterion doesn't come
from the order of its checks.
That may be so, but our method of removing choices that fail to
12 matches
Mail list logo
