On 2003-11-12 00:34:29 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Open Use logo is freely licensed, isn't it? If it isn't, it
should
be.
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the
Debian project, but does
On 2003-11-12 00:34:29 + Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The Open Use logo is freely licensed, isn't it? If it isn't, it
should
be.
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the
Debian project, but
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:11:55 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
In general, people who wish to vote insincerely need to have
highly accurate predictions of the outcome of the vote to make
sure their insincere vote
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:11:55 -0500, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
In general, people who wish to vote insincerely need to have
highly accurate predictions of the outcome of the vote to make
sure their insincere vote
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
In general, people who wish to vote insincerely need to have highly
accurate predictions of the outcome of the vote to make sure their
insincere vote doesn't result in an outcome less desirable than a
sincere vote.
On Tue, Nov
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:41PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
I'll be interested in seeing how you get rid of strategic voters, since
from my POV that's a property of the method, not a deficiency.
My goal is much more modest than getting rid of strategic voting; it
may be impossible
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
Cloneproof SSD is supposed to
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option
A, and though I may not like further discussion, I like the other
options even less than further discussion.
Ranking options below furter discussion
[snip]
Ok, thanks!
--
G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do
Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:20:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and
brochures freely-licensed?
AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I might be
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is there *ever* a strategic advantage, then, to not ranking further
discussion immediately behind your most-preferred-choice?
Assuming your true preference is (A-B-D-C) ([1243]) where D is the
default option and A, B, and C require a 3:1 majority
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:41PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
I'll be interested in seeing how you get rid of strategic voters, since
from my POV that's a property of the method, not a deficiency.
My goal is much more modest than getting rid of strategic voting; it
may be impossible
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Giving a gypsy a gold coin helps.
(null pointer dereferencing metaphor)
Can you help me recover from the exception that was just thrown? :)
--
G. Branden Robinson| We either learn from history or,
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 08:21:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
Cloneproof SSD is supposed to
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option
A, and though I may not like further discussion, I like the other
options even less than further discussion.
Ranking options below furter discussion
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Actually deploying a strategy does mean your voting insincerely. By
definition. Voting insincerely shouldn't be taken as an insult.
I take it you and Manoj have a difference of opinion on this point.
Or am I misunderstanding one
[snip]
Ok, thanks!
--
G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do
Debian GNU/Linux |when they take over a country is to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:20:59AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and
brochures freely-licensed?
AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I might be
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
Is there *ever* a strategic advantage, then, to not ranking further
discussion immediately behind your most-preferred-choice?
Assuming your true preference is (A-B-D-C) ([1243]) where D is the
default option and A, B, and C require a 3:1 majority
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:30:14 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Umm, consider a ballot: 1432. It may mean mean I like option A, and
though I may not like further discussion, I like the other options
even less than
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:53:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
It's a technical term. We're asking for people to give their preferences
in a list of options; if that's not
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
Cloneproof SSD is supposed to provide this. If the introduction of
default options violates this
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and
brochures freely-licensed?
AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I might be
mistaken, though. (there has been an ironic comment on this matter by
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
Cloneproof SSD is supposed to provide this. If the introduction of
default options violates this
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:53:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
It's a technical term. We're asking for people to give their preferences
in a list of options; if that's not
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:34:56AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
Huh? We don't ship
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 04:58:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
ballot (ratify this?
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:04:11PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
The real answer here is that we should seek a system where the most
strategically beneficial vote is the one that's also sincere.
Cloneproof SSD is supposed to provide this. If the introduction of
default options violates this
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:22:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
As a matter of practice, don't we generally distribute such CDs and
brochures freely-licensed?
AFAIK, even our own logo is under a non-free license. I might be
mistaken, though. (there has been an ironic comment on this matter by
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
That you're sincerely disappointed in the outcome of the last GR
doesn't indicate a flaw in the system though -- pretty much every time
we have two options on the ballot, *someone* is going to be
disappointed.
You're associating
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:00:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
That you're sincerely disappointed in the outcome of the last GR
doesn't indicate a flaw in the system though -- pretty much every time
we have two options on the ballot, *someone* is going to be
disappointed.
You're associating
I beg to differ. After catching up on the list I see that a couple
of people claim to have ranked option C below further discussion.
Option C was proposed as AMENDMENT BR3 to this mailing list[1].
There *was* no discussion of it, really. It collected its seconds,
and there was a
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If someone ranked further discussion above all other options, I'd
agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
Why so? I'm not saying I disagree, but
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 05:09:09 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If someone ranked further discussion above all other options, I'd
agree that that was
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
if
the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
orthogonality he
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
2. Expand our committment to freedom beyond software. (4)
Huh? We don't ship any hardware or wetware; and the author of
the sc has stated the sc
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
if
the
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Not necessarily. A person who ranks their preferences insincerely
might simply feel they're using the system the way it was designed
to be used.
I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
It's a technical term.
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:28:54PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs.
I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A
over C. I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C
over A or
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:22:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
What I have trouble understanding is why you might classify that sort of
approach as insincere. It's not as if we have some shortage of people
wanting to talk about things on our lists. Nor is it the case that
there
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:42:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:49:27AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
One interesting question that arises is whether it would make sense to
eliminate some of the complexity of the SRP in the case of a two-valued
ballot (ratify this? [Y/N]).
Note that we already had this happen in the instance of
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.
FWIW, in my opinion there are five distinct
I beg to differ. After catching up on the list I see that a couple
of people claim to have ranked option C below further discussion.
Option C was proposed as AMENDMENT BR3 to this mailing list[1].
There *was* no discussion of it, really. It collected its seconds,
and there was a
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If someone ranked further discussion above all other options, I'd
agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
Why so? I'm not saying I disagree, but
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 05:09:09 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:25:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:22:03 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If someone ranked further discussion above all other options, I'd
agree that that was
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In the recent Disambiguation of 4.1.5 vote, for instance, while I
haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
would have to wonder if anyone who ranked further discussion above
any of the
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
if
the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
orthogonality he
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:29:00 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal
if
the
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 01:21:12PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Not necessarily. A person who ranks their preferences insincerely
might simply feel they're using the system the way it was designed
to be used.
I challenge the use of the term insincerely here.
It's a technical term.
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:28:54PM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs.
I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A
over C. I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C
over A or
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:19:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:54:32 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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.
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:09:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I disagree with this summary. It's possible that Branden might disagree
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00099.html).
That's overstating it a little bit. That message was just my way of
being
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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 change
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In the recent Disambiguation of 4.1.5 vote, for instance, while I
haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
would have to wonder if anyone who ranked further discussion above any
of the other options
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
personal
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:42:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
personal attack. How else is one to interpret you are really
contributing to
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 12:19:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 08:54:32 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
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.
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:09:43PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I disagree with this summary. It's possible that Branden might disagree
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00099.html).
That's overstating it a little bit. That message was just my way of
being
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns 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 change
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
In the recent Disambiguation of 4.1.5 vote, for instance, while I
haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
would have to wonder if anyone who ranked further discussion above any
of the other options
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
guidance
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:46:24AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:09:47 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Both Mr. DeRobertis and I interpreted the text quoted above as a
personal
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
If someone ranked further discussion above all other options, I'd
agree that that was probably an insincere vote.
Why so? I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to hear someone else's
thoughts on the phenomenon. I'm interested in
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:19:25PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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 mean
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or
replace the text of the resolution with that?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:49:54PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Gosh. Have you been reading the thread you
On Nov 2, 2003, at 17:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, if there really four *orthogonal* issues, then maybe
there should be four ballots. It's only when the issues are
intertwined
that it makes sense to put them on the same ballot.
That's really all I'm saying.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Nov 3, 2003, at 01:22, Anthony Towns wrote:
Where's our origin? It's at keep doing what we're doing now.
It's not quite at the origin; we have, as a project, not made any
formal decision to keep i386. If we were to vote on it, we would of, I
suppose under 4.1.5 of the Constitution.
(Aside:
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 change
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 mean
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or
replace the text of the resolution with that?
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:49:54PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
Gosh. Have you been reading the thread you
On Nov 2, 2003, at 17:09, Raul Miller wrote:
On the other hand, if there really four *orthogonal* issues, then maybe
there should be four ballots. It's only when the issues are
intertwined
that it makes sense to put them on the same ballot.
That's really all I'm saying.
On Nov 3, 2003, at 01:22, Anthony Towns wrote:
Where's our origin? It's at keep doing what we're doing now.
It's not quite at the origin; we have, as a project, not made any
formal decision to keep i386. If we were to vote on it, we would of, I
suppose under 4.1.5 of the Constitution.
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:29:41PM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
I tried to do something similar with my Debian voting system page at
http://seehuhn.de/comp/vote.html
Suggestions how this page could be improved are very welcome.
Yes! Let's move it to the the http://www.debian.org/vote page
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 verge
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
practice of
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
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 deemed
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
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, 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, 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 wrote:
Is
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.
I'm
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 it, that it
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]
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
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 to
from the ballot.
If a sufficient majority (many more than 6) votes for that amendment,
it wins. Otherwise, it doesn't win.
[...]
How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto?
Please see the original message titled GRs, irrelevant amendments, and
insincere voting.
--
G
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 [EMAIL
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
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 popular
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 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 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 the
1 - 100 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
