Hi,
Since discussion seems to have died down here, could we have a
revised draft? (I am afraid I have not had time to follow the
discussion very closely of late, but I could go and read through the
archives if I must).
I still need to make changes to the vote taking scripts to
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:25:24AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> In any event, as I stated before, I had dropped the use of "preferred"
> in favor of "beat path" because "beat path" is used in the technical
> literature on voting systems and seems to have a precise definition
> which agrees with the
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:25:24AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> In any event, as I stated before, I had dropped the use of "preferred"
> in favor of "beat path" because "beat path" is used in the technical
> literature on voting systems and seems to have a precise definition
> which agrees with the
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 03:03:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Well, you just said a message ago that you didn't like using terms that'd
> been used before either, so that's a bit contradictory. It's weird
> to think that x can be "preferred" over y while y is also "preferred"
> over x, but proba
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 03:03:37PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Well, you just said a message ago that you didn't like using terms that'd
> been used before either, so that's a bit contradictory. It's weird
> to think that x can be "preferred" over y while y is also "preferred"
> over x, but proba
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 11:30:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > *shrug* Then how about "An option A is said to master an option, B,
> > if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats C and
> > C masters B." ? Or "transitively beats" ?
> In my first draft, I used "Option j is PREF
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:42:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sorry, there's a "Smith set", not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
> Schwartz set.
Yes.
> *shrug* Then how about "An option A is said to master an option, B,
> if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 11:30:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > *shrug* Then how about "An option A is said to master an option, B,
> > if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats C and
> > C masters B." ? Or "transitively beats" ?
> In my first draft, I used "Option j is PREF
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:42:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sorry, there's a "Smith set", not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
> Schwartz set.
Yes.
> *shrug* Then how about "An option A is said to master an option, B,
> if A beats B, or if there is some other option, C, where A beats
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:00:15PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
> > term-of-art.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
> statement?
>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?
Sorry, there's a "Smith set", not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
Schwartz set.
> Rem
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:48:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?
Sorry, there's a "Smith set", not a Schulze set. So presumably we mean the
Schwartz set.
> Rem
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:00:15PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
> > term-of-art.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
> statement?
>
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
> term-of-art.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
statement?
Here's my understanding:
The only place the constitution uses the word "d
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 04:38:46PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Except that dominates is (if I understand correctly) the appropriate
> term-of-art.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is your basis for this
statement?
Here's my understanding:
The only place the constitution uses the word "d
> "Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns
Raul> "Dominates" invites non-technical comparisons between the
Raul> proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism. I'd like to
Raul> avoid that term if possible
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,
I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.
***
Axiomatic Definition:
Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number o
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,
I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.
***
Axiomatic Definition:
Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number o
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/condor2.html says:
"1. An "unbeaten set" is a set of candidates none of whom is beaten by
anyone outside that set. 2.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> YM "Schwartz set" here? [0] There might be a "Schulze set" of some sort?
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/condor2.html says:
"1. An "unbeaten set" is a set of candidates none of whom is beaten by
anyone outside that set. 2.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
> with no quorum required to propose the resolution.
We accept them with the same requirements as a resolution: a proposer
and some seconders -- quorums don't
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:01AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> My thought was that we accept resolutions from anyone anyway,
> with no quorum required to propose the resolution.
We accept them with the same requirements as a resolution: a proposer
and some seconders -- quorums don't
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> --
>> A.3. Voting procedure
>> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
>> separate bal
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
> "If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
> option. If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
> to it in ball
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> --
> A.3. Voting procedure
> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
>separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all the
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 01:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Shouldn't the quorom be counted at the same time the supermajority is? ie:
> "If a quorum is required for an option, there must be [...] default
> option. If there are not, then that option is discarded, and reference
> to it in bal
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:27:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> --
> A.3. Voting procedure
> 1. Each independent set of related amendments is voted on in a
>separate ballot. Each such ballot has as options all th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
Raul Miller and I have been hashing this off line for a bit,
and this is what we have come up with (most of the driving came from
Raul, I am merely pushing this into the -vote list):
It still needs to be reviewed, and we'll need a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
[Please follow up to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In December 2000, Raul Miller proposed a GR to fix the voting
process as defined in the constitution. The GR was withdrawn until a
committee assigned to study the problem returned with a
re
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:56:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > OTOH, so far none of
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:56:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > OTOH, so far none of
> For whatever it's worth: I think that the voting geeks recommendations
> make sense and I think that fixing a bug in our voting system--even
> one who's effect is statistically improbable--is a worthwhile use of
> our time. I support moving forward with this.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:56:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > OTOH, so far none of
> For whatever it's worth: I think that the voting geeks recommendations
> make sense and I think that fixing a bug in our voting system--even
> one who's effect is statistically improbable--is a worthwhile use of
> our time. I support moving forward with this.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:56:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > OTOH, so far none of
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns
Branden> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
> > "Past performance is no guarantee of future results
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:29:31AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
> > "Past performance is no guarantee of future result
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
> "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
Sure, I figured most people would draw the same conclusions themsel
On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
> "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
Sure, I figured most people would draw the same conclusions themse
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
> however you counted the votes in the 2001 elections you got the same
> result,
Who's to say this will be the case next year, and every
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 03:13:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> OTOH, so far none of this has mattered:
"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
> however you counted the votes in the 2001 elections you got the same
> result,
Who's to say this will be the case next year, and every
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes:
Anthony> A precis:
And the full Monte:
The emails that started this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-22/msg00014.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-22/msg00015.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:52:38AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> [...] a GR to fix the voting process as defined in the constitution [...]
A precis:
* The vote counting method is really "Condorcet" not
"Concorde". Kinda, almost.
* It's not obvious how to coun
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:52:38AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> [...] a GR to fix the voting process as defined in the constitution [...]
A precis:
* The vote counting method is really "Condorcet" not
"Concorde". Kinda, almost.
* It's not obvious how to cou
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:52:38AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> To recap the discussions held nearly a year and a half ago
> (examining the debian-vote and debian-devel archives may prove
> illuminating).
Thanks for raising this issue, Manoj!
--
G. Branden Robinson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
In December 2000, Raul Miller proposed a GR to fix the voting
process as defined in the constitution. The GR was withdrawn until a
committee assigned to study the problem returned with a
recommendation. We have a clear recommendation f
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:52:38AM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> To recap the discussions held nearly a year and a half ago
> (examining the debian-vote and debian-devel archives may prove
> illuminating).
Thanks for raising this issue, Manoj!
--
G. Branden Robinson
48 matches
Mail list logo
