On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote: > Yes, that too. :-) But as I wrote, for the 50% situation, there is a > reason we want that. We want to say "there are more people in favour > than against". With the supermajority, we want to say "there are > many more people in favour than against".
Right. My main point is that for pathologically small values of voters such as this, changing the meaning of super-majority to include equality means that there is no effective difference between majority and super-majority. Perhaps this is a bug that should be solved by increasing the TC membership instead. [If 7 people are voting, suddenly all of these issues go away; 4/3, 5/2, and 6/1 become the magic numbers for N of 1, 2 and 3.] > When the actual value is arbitrary anyway, it makes sense to solve > it. All of the values we pick are going to be arbitrary to at least some degree, so this isn't terribly convincing to me. Don Armstrong -- It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is smoking. -- Andrew Suffield in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
