Dear participants,
I wrote to Mike Ossipoff (19 March 2005):
> I can only comment on how you motivated wv at the EM
> mailing list. Here, you used GMC from the very beginning.
> And GMC was one of your main arguments for using wv.
Mike Ossipoff wrote to me (20 March 2005):
> I introduced and prop
Dear participants,
Mike Ossipoff proposed the MinMax(wv) tie-breaking strategy.
Now he claims that (by proposing this tie-breaking strategy)
he proposed wv methods in general.
However, I argue that it cannot be said that Mike proposed wv
methods in general because he didn't propose a general conc
Dear Mike,
I wrote (27 Feb 2005):
> Well, you proposed MinMax(winning votes). But you didn't
> propose a general concept that could also be used for
> other methods than MinMax. Therefore, it cannot be said
> that you proposed "winning votes" in general.
You wrote (28 Feb 2005):
> You say that I
Dear Mike,
you wrote (26 Feb 2005):
> But he [= David Gamble] didn't ask who first defined
> the Schulze method. He asked who first proposed the
> wv Condorcet methods. I'd proposed the wv Condorcet
> methods, and wv Condorcet methods were popular, long
> before you joined EM, and long before you
Dear David,
you wrote (25 Feb 2005):
> I know Mike Ossipoff advocates WV as opposed to WM for
> the completion of methods such as Ranked Pairs, Schulze,
> etc. Was he actually the first person to come up with
> the idea as the sentence above seems to imply?
As far as I remember correctly, two dif
