From: | Manoj Srivastava <srivasta(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors |
Date: | 2003-02-23 11:43:34 |
Message-ID: | 87n0kn8bo9.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-announce spi-bylaws spi-general |
>>>>> In article <20030223111503(dot)GC14177(at)wiggy(dot)net>, Wichert Akkerman
>>>>> <wichert(at)wiggy(dot)net> writes:
> Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Why is that undesired in Debian? Indeed, since you cannot force
>> anyone in Debisan to stop discussing anything anyway, how is the
>> reject this proposition any different whatsoever than further
>> discussion?
> This is not Debian; I'm not really interested in how relevant this
> might be to Debian.
Cute. You cut away the context that shows that this is indeed
about debian voting. Let us see what the exchange was, really, with
context:
>>>>> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
>>>>>> A.6 Vote Counting
>>>>>> 1. Each voter's ballot ranks the options being voted on. Not all
>>>>>> options need be ranked. Ranked options are considered
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> preferred to all unranked options. Voters may rank options
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> equally. Unranked options are considered to be ranked equally
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> with one another. Details of how ballots may be filled out
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> will be included in the Call For Votes.
>>>> In article <20030222215239(dot)GC25781(at)wiggy(dot)net>, Wichert Akkerman
>>>> <wichert(at)wiggy(dot)net> writes:
>>>>> Sounds like you are trying to introduce the concept of
>>>>> 'everyone else equally' into Condorcet, which feels a bit
>>>>> awkward. If you start doing that you might also want to
>>>>> consider adding an 'anyone but X' option.
>>> Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>>> Debian already has this; rank the one person unacceptable to you
>>>> below the default option, rank everyone else equally above the
>>>> default option.
>>> Yes, the default option it the trick Debian uses to accomplish
>>> that. However it can also cause an election result that is
>>> undesired: the 'further discussion' outcome.
>> Why is that undesired in Debian? Indeed, since you cannot force
>> anyone in Debisan to stop discussing anything anyway, how is the
>> reject this proposition any different whatsoever than further
>> discussion?
> This is not Debian; I'm not really interested in how relevant this
> might be to Debian.
Heh. After 6 email exchanges where we are talking about the
Debian draft, you suddenly want to say this conversation was not
about Debian's voting system?
manoj
--
"It's OK to do the right thing... as long as you don't get caught."
The Lone Contractor
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta(at)acm(dot)org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wichert Akkerman | 2003-02-23 11:57:21 | Re: Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors |
Previous Message | Wichert Akkerman | 2003-02-23 11:15:03 | Re: Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wichert Akkerman | 2003-02-23 11:57:21 | Re: Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors |
Previous Message | Wichert Akkerman | 2003-02-23 11:15:03 | Re: Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wichert Akkerman | 2003-02-23 11:57:21 | Re: Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors |
Previous Message | Wichert Akkerman | 2003-02-23 11:15:03 | Re: Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors |