Proposals, discussions and announcements

Manoj Srivastava | 8 Jun 2003 04:37

Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Hi,,
        This is the second call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone
 proof SSD voting methods GR. Apparently, the first call did not make
 it to d-d-a.

======================================================================
     Votes must be received by 23:59:59, Friday, June 20th, 2003

This vote is being conducted in accordance to the Debian Constitution, 
Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on an General
Resolution to Amend the constitution to update the Voting
Mechanism. Full text of the amendment can be found at:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0002 

HOW TO VOTE

Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
choice names.

In the brackets next to your preferred choice, place a 1. Place a 2 in
the brackets next to your next choice. Do not enter a number smaller
than 1 or larger than 2. You may rank options equally (as long as all
choices X you make fall in the range 1<= X <= 2).

To vote "no, no matter what" rank "None Of The Above" as more
desirable than the unacceptable choices, or You may rank the "None Of
The Above" choice, and leave choices you consider unacceptable
blank. Unranked choices are considered equally the least desired
choices, and ranked below all ranked choices. (Note: if the None Of
The Above choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other unranked

(Continue reading)

headers

Hamish Moffatt | 10 Jun 2003 17:03

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,,
>         This is the second call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone
>  proof SSD voting methods GR. Apparently, the first call did not make
>  it to d-d-a.
> 

For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
could the proponents of this amendment please explain what problem
it attempts to solve, with real life examples?

An explanation of why we need such a complicated system at all would be
interesting too.

Follow-ups to debian-vote, please.

As an aside, where is the constituition located on www.d.o, and why
doesn't the search engine find any references to it at all?

Hamish
--

-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish <at> debian.org> <hamish <at> cloud.net.au>

headers

Josip Rodin | 11 Jun 2003 19:54

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> why doesn't the search engine find any references to [the constitution] at
> all?

Please file a bug...

(Note that the first match on the site map for constitution works.)

--

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

headers

Branden Robinson | 11 Jun 2003 01:59

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> As an aside, where is the constituition located on www.d.o,

http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution

> and why doesn't the search engine find any references to it at all?

...can't help you with that one.

--

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    America is at that awkward stage.
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    It's too late to work within the
branden <at> debian.org                 |    system, but too early to shoot the
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    bastards.           -- Claire Wolfe

headers

Hamish Moffatt | 11 Jun 2003 16:50

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 06:59:14PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > As an aside, where is the constituition located on www.d.o,
> 
> http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution
> 
> > and why doesn't the search engine find any references to it at all?
> 
> ...can't help you with that one.

I guess that'd be because I spelt it wrong 

--

-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish <at> debian.org> <hamish <at> cloud.net.au>

headers

Buddha Buck | 11 Jun 2003 22:12

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
>
>could the proponents of this amendment please explain what problem
>it attempts to solve, with real life examples?
>
The main problem is that the existing voting system as described in the
Debian Constitution is poorly defined, with some inherent
contradictions.  It wasn't looked at too closely when the Constitution
was first developed.  Among other problems:  It tries to implement a
Condorcet-based voting system, but calls it "Concorde" instead; it has
the property that if there is no clear winner (what Condorcet proponents
would call an "ideal democratic winner" or a "Condorcet winner", then
all the options are rejected before a winner is chosen from the
"remaining" options, etc.

There were also severe questions as to how the supermajority
requirements should be implemented.

These issues came to a head when a GR was proposed a modification to the
Social Contract that would eliminate the commitment by Debian to support
the "non-free" section.  It became clear that any ballot would contain
an amendment to the SC (viewed as requiring a supermajority to change),
a proposed policy statement (viewed as requiring only a simple
majority), and the "default" option.

A review of the constitution to figure out how to conduct such a vote
provided more confusion than answers.  So the secretary decided to
shelve the non-free GR until the voting issues were cleared up.  It's

(Continue reading)

headers

Raul Miller | 11 Jun 2003 03:28

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
> could the proponents of this amendment please explain what problem
> it attempts to solve, with real life examples?
>
> An explanation of why we need such a complicated system at all would be
> interesting too.
> 
> Follow-ups to debian-vote, please.

The biggest issue is that the current constitution is somewhat somewhat
ambiguous about how votes are to be conducted.  Fortunately, we're not
at an impasse, because the constitution also declares that the project
secretary has complete control over the interpretation -- however, it
would probably be a good thing if other people could have a good chance
of agreeing with the secretary when reading the constitution.

One of the larger areas of ambiguity has to do with how votes are
conducted which involve options with supemajority and options which
don't have supermajority.  Basically, the voting mechanism doesn't say
who wins for some sets of ballots in that case.

As an illustration of the above two points, consider:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200306/msg00007.html
Here, we have a reasonable person thinking that the constitution
*requires* that we use a ballot for this vote which quite possibly the
constitution's voting mechanism won't pick a winner for.  And, yes,
the secretary probably does have the power to pick the winner if that
happens -- but I imagine some people (the secretary included) would be
reasonably upset if that's how things played out.

(Continue reading)

headers

John H. Robinson, IV | 11 Jun 2003 05:30

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Raul Miller wrote:
> 
> And, finally, the new voting system is (for the most part) compatible
> with the intent of the existing voting system.  It supports supermajority
> (which makes changing the constitution hard), and it supports quorum
> (which means very low participation can invalidate the vote).

the use of the word Quorum with respect to either the current or
proposed Constituction is misleading at best, and outrightly false
at face value.

case in point: as we add more voters that actively vote _against_ a
proposal, we can cause an option to ``fail to meet quorum.'' that goes
against every applicable definition of quorum that i can come across.

a more accurate way to say it is that the Constitution and it's proposed
replacement support an approval margin.

-john

headers

Manoj Srivastava | 11 Jun 2003 07:41

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 20:30:33 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <jaqque <at> debian.org> said: 

> case in point: as we add more voters that actively vote _against_ a
> proposal, we can cause an option to ``fail to meet quorum.'' that
> goes against every applicable definition of quorum that i can come
> across.

	Can you demonstrate that with an example, please? As far as I
 can tell, this is very wrong, or at best shows a
 misunderstanding of the proposal.

	manoj
--

-- 
"There... I've run rings 'round you logically" Monty Python's Flying
Circus
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta <at> debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%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

headers

Raul Miller | 11 Jun 2003 06:01

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:30:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> case in point: as we add more voters that actively vote _against_ a
> proposal, we can cause an option to ``fail to meet quorum.''

This is completely false.

--

-- 
Raul

headers

John H. Robinson, IV | 11 Jun 2003 07:41

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:30:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > case in point: as we add more voters that actively vote _against_ a
> > proposal, we can cause an option to ``fail to meet quorum.''
> 
> This is completely false.

Proposed change:

A.6.3 Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
  by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
  a. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters who
    prefer option A over option B.
  b. An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio N, if
    V(A,D) is strictly greater than N * V(D,A).
  c. If a supermajority of S:1 is required for A, its majority ratio is
    S; otherwise, its majority ratio is 1.

Two options plus default option. 400 eligible voters. Quorum of 30. 75
voters.

75 ABD

A wins easily.

75 more voters.

75 BDA

as per A.6.c, the required majority ratio for A is 1.

(Continue reading)

headers

Anthony Towns | 11 Jun 2003 10:38

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:41:13PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:30:33PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > case in point: as we add more voters that actively vote _against_ a
> > > proposal, we can cause an option to ``fail to meet quorum.''
> > This is completely false.
> Proposed change:
> A.6.3 Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option

...which doesn't talk about quorum at all. What was that about "misleading
at best, or outright false at face value" ?

Cheers,
aj

--

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj <at> humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

headers

Jochen Voss | 10 Jun 2003 23:25

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Hello,

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:03:39AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> For the benefit of the average non-voting-geek Debian developer,
> could the proponents of this amendment please explain what problem
> it attempts to solve, with real life examples?
> 
> An explanation of why we need such a complicated system at all would be
> interesting too.

I'm no real proponent of Manoj's amendment, but maybe you
will find my debian voting system information page at

    http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/comp/vote.html

useful.  It answers some of your questions and contains
pointers to further information.

> As an aside, where is the constituition located on www.d.o, and why
> doesn't the search engine find any references to it at all?
My page contains a link to the constitution 

I hope this helps,
Jochen
--

-- 
                                         Omm
                                      (0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/index.html

headers

Wouter Verhelst | 8 Jun 2003 09:30

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [   ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment
> [   ] Choice 2: Further Discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Where's the option to oppose the proposed amendment? AFAICS, the only
thing that can be voted for are 'yes, no matter what' and "no, let's
talk about it further". What if I'd wanted to say "no, no matter what"?

Not that I'd actually vote, I don't even understand what's being voted
about (and yes, I have tried. Voting systems just isn't my thing), but
I'd say if one would like to for or against a certain issue, the
'no' option has to be provided...

--

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a
full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." 
  -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.

headers

Richard Braakman | 8 Jun 2003 12:27

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:30:16AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > [   ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment
> > [   ] Choice 2: Further Discussion
> > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 
> Where's the option to oppose the proposed amendment? AFAICS, the only
> thing that can be voted for are 'yes, no matter what' and "no, let's
> talk about it further". What if I'd wanted to say "no, no matter what"?

Adding a "no" option would make things very complicated.  You see,
the "yes" option needs a supermajority.  The "no" option would not.
That would give us a ballot with mixed supermajority and normal majority
options.  Our voting system is currently not able to deal with that
in a sane way; we'd need to upgrade it somehow first.  Hmm, there's
a nice proposal floating around for doing exactly that, where did we
put it?

--

-- 
Richard Braakman
Furthermore, I believe that SCO should be destroyed.

headers

Wouter Verhelst | 8 Jun 2003 20:51

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 01:27:11PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:30:16AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > [   ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment
> > > [   ] Choice 2: Further Discussion
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > 
> > Where's the option to oppose the proposed amendment? AFAICS, the only
> > thing that can be voted for are 'yes, no matter what' and "no, let's
> > talk about it further". What if I'd wanted to say "no, no matter what"?
> 
> Adding a "no" option would make things very complicated.  You see,
> the "yes" option needs a supermajority.  The "no" option would not.
> That would give us a ballot with mixed supermajority and normal majority
> options.  Our voting system is currently not able to deal with that
> in a sane way; we'd need to upgrade it somehow first.

...

Right.

(makes a mental note about not even remotely trying to comment on
things I don't even understand anyway)

--

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a

(Continue reading)

headers

Anthony Towns | 8 Jun 2003 19:52

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 01:27:11PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:30:16AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > > [   ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment
> > > [   ] Choice 2: Further Discussion
> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Adding a "no" option would make things very complicated.  You see,
> the "yes" option needs a supermajority.  

Actually, we'd handle it this way:

	* First we'd have a vote on which resolution we want to pass
	  (A.3.1), which would have as option for the original proposal
	  and any amendments, and Further Discussion. Since there
	  weren't any amendments that received enough seconds, it would
	  look exactly like the above. This vote doesn't require a
	  supermajority or a quorum.

	* Then, once that vote was decided, we'd have a "final vote"
	  (A.3.2) whether to pass the resolution, the options on that ballot
	  being "Yes", "No" and "Further Discussion". That one requires
	  a supermajority of votes to rank Yes above No, and a supermajority
	  to rank Yes above Further Discussion to pass (A.6.7)

> Our voting system is currently not able to deal with that
> in a sane way; we'd need to upgrade it somehow first.

HTH.

(Continue reading)

headers

Manoj Srivastava | 9 Jun 2003 08:25

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 03:52:53 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 01:27:11PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:30:16AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
>> > >     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> > > [ ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment [ ] Choice 2:
>> > > Further Discussion
>> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
>> > >     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> Adding a "no" option would make things very complicated.  You see,
>> the "yes" option needs a supermajority.

> Actually, we'd handle it this way:

> * First we'd have a vote on which resolution we want to pass
> 	  (A.3.1), which would have as option for the original
> 	  proposal and any amendments, and Further Discussion. Since
> 	  there weren't any amendments that received enough seconds,
> 	  it would look exactly like the above. This vote doesn't
> 	  require a supermajority or a quorum.

> * Then, once that vote was decided, we'd have a "final vote" (A.3.2)
> 	  whether to pass the resolution, the options on that ballot
> 	  being "Yes", "No" and "Further Discussion". That one
> 	  requires a supermajority of votes to rank Yes above No, and
> 	  a supermajority to rank Yes above Further Discussion to pass
> 	  (A.6.7)

(Continue reading)

headers

Neil Roeth | 10 Jun 2003 04:35

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Jun  9, Manoj Srivastava (srivasta <at> debian.org) wrote:
 > On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 03:52:53 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au> said: 
 > 
 > > On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 01:27:11PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
 > >> On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:30:16AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
 > >> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 > >> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
 > >> > >     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 > >> > > [ ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment [ ] Choice 2:
 > >> > > Further Discussion
 > >> > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines
 > >> > >     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 > >> Adding a "no" option would make things very complicated.  You see,
 > >> the "yes" option needs a supermajority.
 > 
 > > Actually, we'd handle it this way:
 > 
 > > * First we'd have a vote on which resolution we want to pass
 > > 	  (A.3.1), which would have as option for the original
 > > 	  proposal and any amendments, and Further Discussion. Since
 > > 	  there weren't any amendments that received enough seconds,
 > > 	  it would look exactly like the above. This vote doesn't
 > > 	  require a supermajority or a quorum.
 > 
 > > * Then, once that vote was decided, we'd have a "final vote" (A.3.2)
 > > 	  whether to pass the resolution, the options on that ballot
 > > 	  being "Yes", "No" and "Further Discussion". That one
 > > 	  requires a supermajority of votes to rank Yes above No, and
 > > 	  a supermajority to rank Yes above Further Discussion to pass
 > > 	  (A.6.7)

(Continue reading)

headers

Anthony Towns | 10 Jun 2003 08:09

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 10:35:50PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> I'm bothered both by the lack of a "No" option, and the cavalier attitude to
> something explicitly spelled out in the Constitution;

We've never followed the process "explicitly spelled out in the
Constitution".  We even had a vast flamewar over how the above
interpretation wasn't a reasonable or obvious interpretation of the
constitution way back in the day.

Cheers,
aj

--

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj <at> humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

headers

Neil Roeth | 10 Jun 2003 12:59

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Jun 10, Anthony Towns (aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
 > On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 10:35:50PM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
 > > I'm bothered both by the lack of a "No" option, and the cavalier attitude to
 > > something explicitly spelled out in the Constitution;
 > 
 > We've never followed the process "explicitly spelled out in the
 > Constitution".  We even had a vast flamewar over how the above
 > interpretation wasn't a reasonable or obvious interpretation of the
 > constitution way back in the day.

Your comments in conjunction with the snippets from the Constitution that you
posted a couple of days ago lead to a reasonable and obvious interpretation.
Do you, or do you not think we should run the vote as you described there?
Or, are you purposely avoiding taking a position until you don your flameproof
suit? 

So far, we see that a simple yes or no vote in the Debian project implies
unacceptable complexity and flamewars.  That'd be funny if it wasn't
ludicrous.

--

-- 
Neil Roeth

headers

Anthony Towns | 11 Jun 2003 10:41

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 06:59:29AM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
> Your comments in conjunction with the snippets from the Constitution that you
> posted a couple of days ago lead to a reasonable and obvious interpretation.
> Do you, or do you not think we should run the vote as you described there?

I really don't care; getting overly bothered by process isn't the
way to get things done. We've already had an incredibly lengthy and
thorough debate about it, and come up with a fairly good plan about what
to do.  As it is, it's clear that the current system doesn't work well
(you'll note how both Richard and Manoj, who were both around when
the constitution's GR procedure was drafted, and have stayed active
in the project since then, both managed to miss the "clear and obvious
interpretation" of how to run a GR), and everybody who's been serious
about fixing it has pretty much agreed with the current proposal - to
the best of my knowledge there was only one (fairly minor) amendment
proposed, which received only only one second.

(Hrm, is there any chance we could get proposed amendments recorded on
the vote.debian.org page in future, even if they haven't received enough
seconds? Following -vote is pretty unreasonable. Having "Argument For"
and "Argument Against" summaries on the vote.debian.org page would be
nice too.)

Cheers,
aj

--

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj <at> humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

(Continue reading)

headers

Neil Roeth | 11 Jun 2003 12:55

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Jun 11, Anthony Towns (aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au) wrote:
 > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 06:59:29AM -0400, Neil Roeth wrote:
 > > Your comments in conjunction with the snippets from the Constitution that you
 > > posted a couple of days ago lead to a reasonable and obvious interpretation.
 > > Do you, or do you not think we should run the vote as you described there?
 > 
 > I really don't care; getting overly bothered by process isn't the
 > way to get things done.

In general, I agree, but I think there is a point beyond which the time wasted
by not following a process exceeds the time spent following the process.

 > (you'll note how both Richard and Manoj, who were both around when
 > the constitution's GR procedure was drafted, and have stayed active
 > in the project since then, both managed to miss the "clear and obvious
 > interpretation" of how to run a GR)

And Manoj agreed that the ballot is flawed, so apparently it's clear on a
second reading.  

--

-- 
Neil Roeth

headers

Manoj Srivastava | 11 Jun 2003 16:46

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 06:55:47 -0400, Neil Roeth <neil <at> debian.org> said: 

> And Manoj agreed that the ballot is flawed, so apparently it's clear
> on a second reading.  

	Sure. Where we differ is in considering this to be a mountain
 or a molehill.

	manoj
--

-- 
Reader, suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you were a member of
Congress.  But I repeat myself. Mark Twain
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta <at> debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%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

headers

Neil Roeth | 12 Jun 2003 04:39

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Jun 11, Manoj Srivastava (srivasta <at> debian.org) wrote:
 > On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 06:55:47 -0400, Neil Roeth <neil <at> debian.org> said: 
 > 
 > > And Manoj agreed that the ballot is flawed, so apparently it's clear
 > > on a second reading.  
 > 
 > 	Sure. Where we differ is in considering this to be a mountain
 >  or a molehill.

Yes.  And whether it would be simpler to void the vote and redo it versus
letting the current vote continue and hoping it does not make a difference.

Most important to me at this point is that we actually resolve it one way or
the other rather than have an endless debate.  Are you going to void the vote
or not?  I'll live with the decision and stop debating it either way, though
obviously I will be happier if you redo this vote with a flawless ballot.

Thanks.

--

-- 
Neil Roeth

headers

Manoj Srivastava | 12 Jun 2003 06:12

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 22:39:20 -0400, Neil Roeth <neil <at> debian.org> said: 

> On Jun 11, Manoj Srivastava (srivasta <at> debian.org) wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 06:55:47 -0400, Neil Roeth <neil <at> debian.org>
>> said:
>>
>> > And Manoj agreed that the ballot is flawed, so apparently it's
>> > clear on a second reading.  
>>
>> Sure. Where we differ is in considering this to be a mountain or a
>> molehill.

> Yes.  And whether it would be simpler to void the vote and redo it
> versus letting the current vote continue and hoping it does not make
> a difference.

> Most important to me at this point is that we actually resolve it
> one way or the other rather than have an endless debate.  Are you
> going to void the vote or not?

	I would much rather not void this vote unless it seems likely
 that the flawed ballot would make a difference in the results. Thus,
 if the Yes option wins with the required majority, I think we a re
 agreed there is no impropriety. 

	So, I am going to let this vote proceed.

> I'll live with the decision and stop debating it either way, though
> obviously I will be happier if you redo this vote with a flawless
> ballot.

(Continue reading)

headers

John H. Robinson, IV | 10 Jun 2003 07:35

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Neil Roeth wrote:
> On Jun  9, Manoj Srivastava (srivasta <at> debian.org) wrote:
>  > On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 03:52:53 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au> said: 
>  > > Actually, we'd handle it this way:
>  > 
>  > > * First we'd have a vote on which resolution we want to pass
>  > > 	  (A.3.1), which would have as option for the original
>  > > 	  proposal and any amendments, and Further Discussion. Since
>  > > 	  there weren't any amendments that received enough seconds,
>  > > 	  it would look exactly like the above. This vote doesn't
>  > > 	  require a supermajority or a quorum.
>  > > 
>  > > * Then, once that vote was decided, we'd have a "final vote" (A.3.2)
>  > > 	  whether to pass the resolution, the options on that ballot
>  > > 	  being "Yes", "No" and "Further Discussion". That one
>  > > 	  requires a supermajority of votes to rank Yes above No, and
>  > > 	  a supermajority to rank Yes above Further Discussion to pass
>  > > 	  (A.6.7)

Anthony,

my reading is that 4.1.2 requires a 3:1 supermajority to amend the
Constitution. A.6.7 is the implementation of the requirement.

>  > 	Is this complexity required?

Manoj,

according to A.3.1, yes. we must have this complexity.

(Continue reading)

headers

Neil Roeth | 11 Jun 2003 01:06

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Jun  9, John H. Robinson, IV (jaqque <at> debian.org) wrote:
 > Neil,
 > 
 > this may be the A.3.1 vote. in which case, this is a valid ballot. we
 > will have the A.3.2 vote subsequent to this vote, unless Further
 > Discussion wins this one.

I assumed it was not, since the resolution says there are no amendments to it,
and A.3.1 is about voting on amendments.  I definitely agree with you that
this needs clarification, though, and the best place to put that would be in
the ballot itself, e.g., "This ballot fulfills the requirements of section
A.3.2."

--

-- 
Neil Roeth

headers

Manoj Srivastava | 10 Jun 2003 17:29

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:35:04 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <jaqque <at> debian.org> said: 

> Neil Roeth wrote:
>> On Jun 9, Manoj Srivastava (srivasta <at> debian.org) wrote:
>> > On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 03:52:53 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> > <aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au> said:
>> > > Actually, we'd handle it this way:
>> >
>> > > * First we'd have a vote on which resolution we want to pass
>> > > 	  (A.3.1), which would have as option for the original
>> > > 	  proposal and any amendments, and Further Discussion. Since
>> > > 	  there weren't any amendments that received enough seconds,
>> > > 	  it would look exactly like the above. This vote doesn't
>> > > 	  require a supermajority or a quorum.
>> > >
>> > > * Then, once that vote was decided, we'd have a "final vote"
>> > >   (A.3.2)
>> > > 	  whether to pass the resolution, the options on that ballot
>> > > 	  being "Yes", "No" and "Further Discussion". That one
>> > > 	  requires a supermajority of votes to rank Yes above No, and
>> > > 	  a supermajority to rank Yes above Further Discussion to pass
>> > > 	  (A.6.7)

> Anthony,

> my reading is that 4.1.2 requires a 3:1 supermajority to amend the
> Constitution. A.6.7 is the implementation of the requirement.

>> > 	Is this complexity required?

(Continue reading)

headers

Glenn McGrath | 10 Jun 2003 20:22

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:29:31 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> wrote:

> 	Yes, the ballot is flawed, since I did not see that the 3.2
>  ballot would be doable (In my hurry, I skipped over 3.1 -- since
>  there were no alternatives, and did not recall that 3.2 mandated the
>  No option), but in practice we can see that in this case the flaw may
>  noit make a difference to the outcome.
> 
> 	I guess on this issue I am more interested in getting this
>  issue resolved, rather than being a rules lawyer, since I
>  do not think the outcome shall be affected. 
> 
> 	If you can show me how the outcome is changed, or the project
>  affected detrimentally, I am open to being persuaded otherwise.

I too want the voting issue to be resolved, i think your oversight might
make it harder to get the supermajority.

If voting acording to the constitution, people voting against the
amendment will have their votes split between two options.

As it is all people voting against the amendment will be concentrated
under the "Further Discussion".

It doesnt make sense having a further discussion option if there is only
one option.

I think the constitution needs to be followed (or changed), but its
easier to changing the voting system if we can agree on a

(Continue reading)

headers

Manoj Srivastava | 10 Jun 2003 21:30

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:22:12 +1000, Glenn McGrath <bug1 <at> optushome.com.au> said: 

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:29:31 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> wrote:

>> Yes, the ballot is flawed, since I did not see that the 3.2 ballot
>> would be doable (In my hurry, I skipped over 3.1 -- since there
>> were no alternatives, and did not recall that 3.2 mandated the No
>> option), but in practice we can see that in this case the flaw may
>> noit make a difference to the outcome.
>>
>> I guess on this issue I am more interested in getting this issue
>> resolved, rather than being a rules lawyer, since I do not think
>> the outcome shall be affected.
>>
>> If you can show me how the outcome is changed, or the project
>> affected detrimentally, I am open to being persuaded otherwise.

> I too want the voting issue to be resolved, i think your oversight
> might make it harder to get the supermajority.

	Quite.

> If voting acording to the constitution, people voting against the
> amendment will have their votes split between two options.

> As it is all people voting against the amendment will be
> concentrated under the "Further Discussion".

	And thus, if we still get supermajority, the oversight is

(Continue reading)

headers

Guido Trotter | 10 Jun 2003 21:30

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 04:22:12AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:

Hi,

> I too want the voting issue to be resolved, i think your oversight might
> make it harder to get the supermajority.
> 
> If voting acording to the constitution, people voting against the
> amendment will have their votes split between two options.
> 
> As it is all people voting against the amendment will be concentrated
> under the "Further Discussion".
> 

We are talking about condorcet voting, so there is no way the people's vote
will be "split". If the options are

1	Yes
2	No 
3	Further Discussion

If one votes 321 or 231 this doesn't change the outcome in any way... And
no one which is against "Yes" will rank it above any of the other two...

Bye,

Guido

headers

John H. Robinson, IV | 10 Jun 2003 19:13

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Executive summary:

 Q1: is this the A.3.1 vote, or the A.3.2 vote?
 Q2: if the A.3.2 vote, why would you not fix an admittedly flawed
     ballot?

 to absolve ourselves the appearance of impropriety, i request that the
 clarification that this vote is the A.3.1 vote be made. there seems to
 be some confusion (not just my own) on this matter.

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:35:04 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <jaqque <at> debian.org> said: 
> 
> > according to A.3.1, yes. we must have this complexity.
> 
> 	To what end?

two ends, actually.

one: No does not mean Further Discussion.
two: we have an accepted methodology for doing exactly what we are
  doing. we are, without good compelling reason, disregarding it.

> 	Let us examine the possibilities here. 
> 
> 	 Of the items on the ballot, 2 are present:
>    a) Yes
>    b) Further discussion
> 
> 	Now, people who really want to say no have to be satisfied

(Continue reading)

headers

Steve Langasek | 10 Jun 2003 21:30

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:13:51AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Executive summary:

>  Q1: is this the A.3.1 vote, or the A.3.2 vote?
>  Q2: if the A.3.2 vote, why would you not fix an admittedly flawed
>      ballot?

>  to absolve ourselves the appearance of impropriety, i request that the
>  clarification that this vote is the A.3.1 vote be made. there seems to
>  be some confusion (not just my own) on this matter.

Do you agree that if the 'yes' option meets its supermajority
requirement, the GR has the unambiguous support of the developership, or
is there a concern that a number of developers would rank the 'yes'
option between the 'no' and 'further discussion' options, giving them no
way to accurately represent their relative preferences given this
ballot?

> > 	In case the Further discussion crowd wins, then we can
> >  ascertain if the reall outcome would have been "no" rather than
> >  further discussion; in practice, there would be no difference, since
> >  I'll make some changes to the GR, and propose a different GR (perhaps
> >  with the quorum -> minimum threshold of acceptability)

> however, if there was a No vote, then you and the rest of the developer
> community would know that the voting developers believe that the the
> current Constitution is fine, and should be left alone.

> a winning Further Discussion would mean (to me, anyway) that We need a
> change, but this particular change is flawed/unacceptable in some way.

(Continue reading)

headers

John H. Robinson, IV | 11 Jun 2003 00:41

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 10:13:51AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> 
> >  to absolve ourselves the appearance of impropriety, i request that the
> >  clarification that this vote is the A.3.1 vote be made. there seems to
> >  be some confusion (not just my own) on this matter.
> 
> Do you agree that if the 'yes' option meets its supermajority
> requirement, the GR has the unambiguous support of the developership,

yes. since i believe that yes voters would also rank No below Yes if the
option were there.

> > there is no reason to not fix it. if you can say that this is the A.3.1
> > vote, nothing else need be done, everyone is happy, and we have the
> > A.3.2 vote in a little bit.
> 
> If this vote can be used unmodified to fulfill the requirements of
> A.3.1, I see no reason this can't be done.

the Secretary has already clarified that this vote is the A.3.2 vote.

> > *) a failure of the Secretary to follow the regulations laid out in the
> >    Constitution calls into question the integrity and impartiality of
> >    the Secretary.
> 
> It's rare that gainsayers will criticize you for following the rules,
> yes.

by following the rules, the naysayers will lose that argument in their

(Continue reading)

headers

Manoj Srivastava | 10 Jun 2003 21:18

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:13:51 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <jaqque <at> debian.org> said: 

> Executive summary:
>  Q1: is this the A.3.1 vote, or the A.3.2 vote?  Q2: if the A.3.2
>  vote, why would you not fix an admittedly flawed
>      ballot?

>  to absolve ourselves the appearance of impropriety, i request that
>  the clarification that this vote is the A.3.1 vote be made. there
>  seems to be some confusion (not just my own) on this matter.

	No, this not the firt part of a two part vote. 

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 22:35:04 -0700, John H Robinson, IV
>> <jaqque <at> debian.org> said:
>>
>> > according to A.3.1, yes. we must have this complexity.
>>
>> To what end?

> two ends, actually.

> one: No does not mean Further Discussion.

> two: we have an accepted methodology for doing exactly what we are
> doing. we are, without good compelling reason, disregarding it.

	A mistake was made. However, now we have to respond to the
 situation. At this point, we need tosee what is reasonable to do, and

(Continue reading)

headers

Neil Roeth | 11 Jun 2003 01:43

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

On Jun 10, Manoj Srivastava (srivasta <at> debian.org) wrote:
 > > this is all very easily solvable by clarifying that this vote is the
 > > A.3.1 vote. no other action need be made.
 > 
 > 	But it was not; and there is no need for a 3.1 vote, since
 >  there are no alternates. This is a mistake made in creating the
 >  ballot, and the responses to the situation we are in are in issue. 
 > 
 > > i want to see this thing done, also. let's do it the right way, and
 > > absolve ourselves of appearances of impropriety. that is all i ask.
 > 
 > 	*Shrug*. If the yes wins by a sizeable majority, I don't see
 >  much impropreity.  I'll still ask the people voting Further
 >  Discussion whether they wanted to vote No.
 > 
 > 	The alternative is to void this vote, and wait until the
 >  second week of July, when we can start the 3.1 vote, and sometime in
 >  August or September for the real vote.

I don't think there was any impropriety here.  Still, I think the simplest,
lowest cost, least confusing thing to do is void the current vote and redo it.
I don't see why we need a A.3.1 vote, though, I agree with your original
interpretation that it is not necessary if there are no amendments.  So, all
we'd need is another (proper) A.3.2 vote.

--

-- 
Neil Roeth

headers

John H. Robinson, IV | 11 Jun 2003 00:36

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> 
> >  to absolve ourselves the appearance of impropriety, i request that
> >  the clarification that this vote is the A.3.1 vote be made. there
> >  seems to be some confusion (not just my own) on this matter.
> 
> 	No, this not the firt part of a two part vote. 

thank you for the clarification.

> 	A mistake was made. However, now we have to respond to the
>  situation. At this point, we need tosee what is reasonable to do, and
>  the costs involved in what we do. 

and i will leave it to you to make that final determination.

> > a winning Further Discussion would mean (to me, anyway) that We need
> > a change, but this particular change is flawed/unacceptable in some
> > way.
> 
> 	If it comes to that, I'll void this vote, or treat it as a 3.1
>  vote. 

i don't like that solution.

either we say that this _is_ the A.3.1 vote, or we say it is not. if it
is not, then the time to void it now, or before the vote is closed. if
it is not voided, then we take it as binding (as binding as a Further
Discussion vote can be) barring any other calamity.

(Continue reading)

headers

Neil Roeth | 8 Jun 2003 17:30

Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

I do not think the set of choices on this ballot meets the requirements of the
current Constitution.  That says a General Resolution, which this ballot
claims it is, should have Yes, No, or Further Discussion options (A.3.2).  I
don't see any way to vote the equivalent of No with the current ballot.

Also, the explanation accompanying the ballot should refer to None Of The
Above only if there is such an option.

P.S. I am not subscribed to debian-vote, please Cc: me on replies.

On Jun  7, Manoj Srivastava (srivasta <at> debian.org) wrote:
 > Hi,,
 >         This is the second call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone
 >  proof SSD voting methods GR. Apparently, the first call did not make
 >  it to d-d-a.
 > 
 > ======================================================================
 >      Votes must be received by 23:59:59, Friday, June 20th, 2003
 > 
 > This vote is being conducted in accordance to the Debian Constitution, 
 > Section A, Standard Resolution Procedure, to vote on an General
 > Resolution to Amend the constitution to update the Voting
 > Mechanism. Full text of the amendment can be found at:
 > http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/vote_0002 
 > 
 > HOW TO VOTE
 > 
 > Do not erase anything between the lines below and do not change the
 > choice names.
 >

(Continue reading)

headers

Jochen Voss | 8 Jun 2003 15:56

Re: Call for votes for the Condorcet/Clone proof SSD voting methods GR

Hello Manoj,

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> To vote "no, no matter what" rank "None Of The Above" as more
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> desirable than the unacceptable choices, ...
>
> [   ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment
> [   ] Choice 2: Further Discussion
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Still not perfect, but much better 

Thank you,
Jochen
--

-- 
                                         Omm
                                      (0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/index.html