On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote:
> Afternoon Lester, > > > Is this simply ... Every element of a vote has to achieve 2/3rds? > > Yes, it is. > > But before you rubbish that idea as ridiculous, think about what it really > means. > > It doesn't mean that people will continue to open a 2/3 vote and then pin a > list of subsidiary decisions onto the voting stage. > > It does mean that the author of the RFC is forced to open a vote with > clear, simple options, that must be acceptable to a real majority for the > motion to pass. > > The aim here is only to raise standards by changing our criteria for > acceptance, it's one simple move. > > It has side effects for RFC authors, obviously, which they may first view > as negative, but unarguably has a net positive effect for everyone else. > > Cheers > Joe > Wait ... what? I assumed that this proposal only pertained to primary RFC acceptance votes, not to secondary votes. I don't see how 2/3 majorities make sense there. You'd either skew in favor of one option, or you'd end up in a situation where an RFC is accepted, but one sub-question has not been resolved (with supermajority) towards either option. Nikita
