Hi,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:06 AM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> This problem only applies if there are some options requiring a
> supermajority and other options that require a simple majority.
Thanks! I would find it easier if the same threshold to beat FD in a
vote applied uniformly to all respon
Felix Lechner writes:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:01 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
>> we could (and did) say that option [FD] gets dropped.
>> So in the situation above, "The DFSG is great" wins even though more
>> people would have preferred to replace the DFSG than to say it was
>> great.
> Would opt
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:01 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> we could (and did) say that option [FD] gets dropped.
> So in the situation above, "The DFSG is great" wins even though more
> people would have preferred to replace the DFSG than to say it was
> great.
Would option (2) win here even if
Charles Plessy writes:
> One last question: in some complex GRs there were discussions about
> problems caused by mixing 1:1 and 3:1 majority options, which frankly
> speaking I could not undertand because I never studied our Condorcet
> method in details. Do you think that such mixes can be pro
> "Charles" == Charles Plessy writes:
Charles> One last question: in some complex GRs there were
Charles> discussions about problems caused by mixing 1:1 and 3:1
Charles> majority options, which frankly speaking I could not
Charles> undertand because I never studied our Condorc
Hi Russ,
Le Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 08:22:47AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>
> Some of the objections that I've seen after recent GRs to complex ballots
> are actually objections to relying on the clone-proof nature of the voting
> system, or arguments that because of human psychology it's not rea
> "Timo" == Timo Röhling writes:
Timo> I must say I find your reasoning convincing. A certain
Timo> stability of ballot options is desirable, and as our voting
Timo> scheme does not suffer from spoiler effects, we can afford to
Timo> keep the odd stale option. Besides, as you p
Russ Allbery writes:
> This paragraph helped me realize that you see my proposal as a
> substantive change over the current rules for the original GR proposer.
> I hadn't entirely realized that it was, and I see that I missed some
> subtlety in current rules, so I went back and reviewed them. I
Charles Plessy writes:
> here are comments from my point of view in the hope of being useful,
> please do not take them as objections; I know that you have looked at
> the problem through many more angles than I did. By the way, sorry in
> advance if what I write today has been already addressed
Thanks Russ for keeping me in the loop,
here are comments from my point of view in the hope of being useful,
please do not take them as objections; I know that you have looked at
the problem through many more angles than I did. By the way, sorry
in advance if what I write today has been already a
* Russ Allbery [2021-11-11 08:26]:
Once a proposal has been sponsored and added to the ballot, we, as a
general social convention, stop sponsoring it unless it feels particularly
important to be listed as a sponsor. That means that any given option
currently on the ballot usually has "hidden" s
(cc'ing Charles since I'm not sure if he's reading all of debian-vote; let
me know if this is annoying and I should stop.)
Sam Hartman writes:
> It sounds like what russ and Charles are talking about is the following:
> * You as a proposer want to accept an amendment
> * A sponsor objects, and
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> Sam Hartman writes:
Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
Charles> the propose
* Russ Allbery [2021-11-08 08:18]:
Probably the simplest fix would be to add something like this as a new
point A.0.3. Do people think it would be worth adding something like
this?
If a proposal (or ballot option; see section §A.1) requires some
number of sponsors N, only the first N Dev
Sam Hartman writes:
> Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
> Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
> Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
> Charles> the proposer of a GR option some years ago.) Woul
Charles> - About the sponsors, if there are too many, then the
Charles> proposer is more at risk to face vetos when accepting
Charles> amendments. (I write that as I accepted major changes as
Charles> the proposer of a GR option some years ago.) Would it make
Charles> sense t
Charles Plessy writes:
> thank you very much for proposing these changes. Overall they are very
> convincing and would already vote for it today, but there are two things
> that I wonder:
> - (Not just to you:) Would it be possible to test them in real befoe
>adopting them? Maybe with som
Hi Russ,
thank you very much for proposing these changes. Overall they are very
convincing and would already vote for it today, but there are two things
that I wonder:
- (Not just to you:) Would it be possible to test them in real befoe
adopting them? Maybe with some kind of role-playing ga
18 matches
Mail list logo
