Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video Selection Process)

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Mon, 25 November 2013 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42761ADFCB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:52:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UgjlKiAvt5G4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us3.mailhostbox.com [70.87.28.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8170C1ADFC7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.166.141.171]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4399314D8B8B; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:52:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1385401957; bh=VUidsFNVIQtxK+QjBCByTvPfrVrE8Sqdxs2S2F0IsXg=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=e8arITsctyNPiLUpSKDOTdfADtZdySW/0mPU28wo11lpMn1jl79CMQUP3nPklBCus x5IVn5PV1rqrL5MYFrLXEmviG6NC2Wt978TOlutUrl26TQMv17XjXaPSdswYyHmOyi lq+rpJtiHzR/meot7YbF/FaHJR2fECxeuAWwqxb4=
From: "Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: "'Harald Alvestrand'" <harald@alvestrand.no>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <528E5AF7.5080403@alvestrand.no> <52922ED3.7070908@alvestrand.no> <002d01cee949$51a4c3c0$f4ee4b40$@co.in> <5292775F.6020600@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <5292775F.6020600@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:22:30 +0530
Message-ID: <004b01ceea07$1f9ee220$5edca660$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac7pYNWYKlKEh5u8SSiLm1dnPbd++AAm8xSQ
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A02020A.52938E65.010D, ss=1, re=0.100, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.100
X-CTCH-Rules: SUBJECT_NEEDS_ENCODING,
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.157
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video Selection Process)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:52:41 -0000

Hi Harald,

The difference between your distribution and my distribution is that all
voters select all the possible combination in your distribution whereas in
my distribution, voters selected their specific choice.

A proponents (40%): A A|B
B proponents (40%): B A|B
Compromisers group 1 (5%): A|B A
Compromisers group 2 (15%): A|B B

In my case, A proponents and Compromisers group 1 treats A|B as A only (45%)
and which is logically correct. OTOH, B proponents and Compromisers group 2
treat A|B as B only (55%). Condorcet mechanism does not bring out the truth
that A has 45% implementation only whereas B has 55% implementation
preference. For my given distribution, IRV brings the truth perfectly as A
has 45% and B has 55% as explained in the previous mail and it reflects the
actual intention of voters. 

In current situation of Video codec MTI, my distribution looks more relevant
as most of the folks does not want the opposite camp codec.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 3:32 AM
> To: Parthasarathi R; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video
> Selection Process)
> 
> On 11/24/2013 08:13 PM, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> > Hi Harald & all,
> >
> > IMO, The fundamental problem with these methods (Condorcet & IRV) is
> that
> > they are designed to find the winner out of the discrete candidates
> (A, B,
> > C) in mind whereas the candidates in this voting is of combination of
> > discrete and set nature (A, B, (A & B), (A | B)). I like to see the
> proof
> > whether the above methods (Condorcet & IRV) are really designed to
> bring the
> > correct winner in these set of candidates as well.
> >
> > I can show how your example of Condorcet fail with (A|B) is as
> follows: The
> > candidates are A,B, (A|B)
> 
> Question: Why do you consider choosing A|B a fail, given that you give
> exactly the same preference numbers under which I consider this
> position
> a reasonable outcome?
> 
> The Condorcet winner will always beat each other candidate if no other
> candidate is present (except in the case of a loop). With your numbers,
> A|B is preferred over A, and A|B is preferred over B, so why is
> choosing
> A|B a fail?
> 
> 
> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.