Re: Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors

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

Responses

Browse spi-announce by date

  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

Browse spi-bylaws by date

  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

Browse spi-general by date

  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