On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:48:05AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Nov 19, Raul Miller wrote: > > Here's some thoughts about how we might implement supermajority: > > > > [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. > > Simple, perhaps, but I'm not willing to risk the project on the > assumption that this would have no negative effects. Supermajority > has the nice property that avoids the recurrent flip-flop problem in a > close voting decision (where Group A wins, then Group B wins, then > Group A wins again, ad nauseum).
How do we know this would happen at all, let alone "ad nauseum"? -- G. Branden Robinson | You could wire up a dead rat to a Debian GNU/Linux | DIMM socket and the PC BIOS memory [EMAIL PROTECTED] | test would pass it just fine. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Ethan Benson
msg02196/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
