Hello,
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:04:35PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 09:53:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > Making "random" additions (with only half-understood consequences)
> > to the original Condorcet voting scheme seems messy to me.
>
> Er.. are you suggesting we squelch debate on supermajority?
Sorry? This I do not understand.
What I wanted to say: I don't like the supermajority
concept because I don't think it is necessary and I did
not think the I can convince myself that the implementation
of supermajorities in your November 19 draft does more good
than bad. But see below...
> None of the additions were "random". They were flawed in a number of
> ways (I had a flawed understanding of the significance of pairwise ties
> in CpSSD, for example), and we've been discussing the flaws.
>
> Personally, I'm currently looking at the draft implied by
> Message-ID: <[🔎] 20021122063835.GA28726@azure.humbug.org.au>
I was somewhat behind with my mail reading.
Now I read Anthony Towns draft and I like it to
some extent. My ranking of options would be now
[1] plain condorcet voting with clone-proof Schwarz sequential dropping
(without supermajorities)
[2] Anthony Towns draft
[3] forther discussion
[4] your November 19 draft
> > And what are we trying to protect ourselves from?
>
> At the moment? We're trying to protect ourselves from instituting a
> bad set of rules.
No. By using supermajorites and quorums.
> > I cannot really imagine something like a "hostile take-over"
> > of the debian project.
>
> Neither can I.
>
> However, I can imagine us making changes out of frustration or anger,
> or for some other reason making changes where we've not fully considered
> the implications of a decision.
Yes, this would be clearly possible. But then there will
be long discussion periods. I did not look it up, but isn't
the minimum discussion period 3 weeks? And hopefully we wouldn't
stay in a state of frustration or anger for the whole 3 weeks.
Jochen
--
Omm
(0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html
Attachment:
pgpak6GwiprkE.pgp
Description: PGP signature