5 ms·

A couple of details for those who did not follow the discussion and are not familiar with Debian's voting system: * Proposal E "Support for multiple init syste

by gioele 7y ago

A couple of details for those who did not follow the discussion and are not familiar with Debian's voting system: * Proposal E "Support for multiple init systems is Required" has been firmly rejected. (In the Debian voting system, rating an option worse than "Further discussion" effectively means considering it even unworthy of being in the ballot.) * The core of Proposal B is «The Debian project recognizes that systemd service units are the preferred configuration for describing how to start a daemon/service. However, Debian remains an environment where developers and users can explore and develop alternate init systems and alternatives to systemd features. Those interested in exploring such alternatives need to provide the necessary development and packaging resources to do that work». The full text can be found at https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002#textb https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002#textb * In case the message were not clear enough, the runner up option is Proposal E "Focus on systemd". Proposal E is also the most voted option.

cperciva 7y ago
You mean the runner up is Proposal F, yes?
IceWreck 7y ago
> Proposal E "Support for multiple init systems is Required" has been firmly rejected. > In case the message were not clear enough, the runner up option is Proposal E "Focus on systemd". Typo here, Its proposal F: Focus on systemd which is the runnerup and like you said E has been rejected.
h1x 7y ago
> the runner up option is Proposal F "Focus on systemd". Proposal F is also the most voted option. I'd say that in this voting system a statment like that is not really important in any way. You'd have to compare it to sum of options that don't focus on systemd as an example or some other combinations. * fixed proposal letter in the quote
- dcow 7y ago
  I don’t think so. Looking at the most voted option tells you what the majority thinks. The voting system is designed to promote a most agreeable resolution not simply the majority’s choice, but knowing what the majority wants is still interesting.
  - h1x 7y ago
    > knowing what the majority wants is still interesting. Totally agree. > Looking at the most voted option tells you what the majority thinks. My point is that the options are designed specifically for this type of voting system. Here it is possible that anti-systemd votes are spread across many options and pro systemd votes are concentrated in only one or two. So even if you have most votes on "Focus on systemd" it doesn't mean that it is what most people want.
    - Tuna-Fish 7y ago
      > Here it is possible that anti-systemd votes are spread across many options and pro systemd votes are concentrated in only one or two. So even if you have most votes on "Focus on systemd" it doesn't mean that it is what most people want. As I said in my above reply which you've ignored, that is not how the voting system works. It is not possible to split votes like that in Condorcet. Everyone who opposes systemd can vote for all of the non-systemd options and not diminish the chances of any of them.
      - shawnz 7y ago
        They are talking about the result of the majority vote, not the result of the Condorcet method.
        cyphar 7y ago
        The result of the "majority vote" is done preferentially, which means that there is no situation in which vote splitting will occur. It makes no sense to refer to the "majority vote" in this context, because the whole point of preferential voting systems is that (usually) no option wins outright on first preferences alone. Thus the result of the Condorcet vote is the order which the maximum number of people would've been most happy with.

by gioele 7y ago

cperciva 7y ago

You mean the runner up is Proposal F, yes?

IceWreck 7y ago

> Proposal E "Support for multiple init systems is Required" has been firmly rejected. > In case the message were not clear enough, the runner up option is Proposal E "Focus on systemd". Typo here, Its proposal F: Focus on systemd which is the runnerup and like you said E has been rejected.

h1x 7y ago

> the runner up option is Proposal F "Focus on systemd". Proposal F is also the most voted option. I'd say that in this voting system a statment like that is not really important in any way. You'd have to compare it to sum of options that don't focus on systemd as an example or some other combinations. * fixed proposal letter in the quote

dcow 7y ago
I don’t think so. Looking at the most voted option tells you what the majority thinks. The voting system is designed to promote a most agreeable resolution not simply the majority’s choice, but knowing what the majority wants is still interesting.
- h1x 7y ago
  > knowing what the majority wants is still interesting. Totally agree. > Looking at the most voted option tells you what the majority thinks. My point is that the options are designed specifically for this type of voting system. Here it is possible that anti-systemd votes are spread across many options and pro systemd votes are concentrated in only one or two. So even if you have most votes on "Focus on systemd" it doesn't mean that it is what most people want.
  - Tuna-Fish 7y ago
    > Here it is possible that anti-systemd votes are spread across many options and pro systemd votes are concentrated in only one or two. So even if you have most votes on "Focus on systemd" it doesn't mean that it is what most people want. As I said in my above reply which you've ignored, that is not how the voting system works. It is not possible to split votes like that in Condorcet. Everyone who opposes systemd can vote for all of the non-systemd options and not diminish the chances of any of them.
    - shawnz 7y ago
      They are talking about the result of the majority vote, not the result of the Condorcet method.
      - cyphar 7y ago
        The result of the "majority vote" is done preferentially, which means that there is no situation in which vote splitting will occur. It makes no sense to refer to the "majority vote" in this context, because the whole point of preferential voting systems is that (usually) no option wins outright on first preferences alone. Thus the result of the Condorcet vote is the order which the maximum number of people would've been most happy with.