Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix"):
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:11:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> M currently can only be 1.That might change. It would be nice to fix this definition so that it works for N:M as well as N:1. > I'm also not very happy with the wording of supermajority. It's > not really defined what it means, but is used. For instance > 4.1.5.3 talks about a "3:1 majority" and not about a > supermajority. I will probably translate this to if N > 1 > for use in devotee. Please do feel free to suggest improvements to the wording. I want this to be clear and unambiguous. How about if we s/supermajority/majority/ in what I just proposed ? > > For the avoidance of any doubt, this change does not affect any > > votes (whether General Resolutions or votes in the Technical > > Committee) in progress at the time the change is made. > > This also means that either all votes will start and stop at the > same time, or the next one will have to wait until this vote is > over. I don't want to run 2 instances of devotee. How you implement this is up to you, I think, but 1. clearly it would be wrong to have a GR which affected the rules for a vote currently in progress and 2. we don't want to hold the whole lot sequentially. Certainly we would like to run all the votes concurrently. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20475.4602.220372.715...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
