On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:54:30PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > [1] The simplest: discard supermajority entirely. Nothing special is > > required to override "important decisions". This has some elegantly > > simple mathematical properties but I don't know of any other argument > > for it.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:12:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I support this. I'd rather see whether or not we screw up in the > absence of supermajority requirements instead of just assuming that we > will. Why would you rather see whether or not we screw up? Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which changes the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more severe for our current set of developers than that of any draft I've proposed)? > In my opinion, if Debian's developers are so militantly, determinedly > "wrong" about something that they force it to a vote and win a majority > of the votes cast, then hope is lost for the "old guard" anyway, and > relying upon a technical or procedural mechanism to serve as an escape > clause will likely just delay the inevitable and promote acrimony. The > face of the Project has changed while they weren't looking. I think the primary justification for supermajority requirement isn't "keep people from making mistakes" it's "let's be able to rely on some fundamental decisions". I've said that already, and I'm mildly disappointed that you've not attempted to address that aspect of the situation. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
