Afternoon Nikita, Why does there need to be sub-questions ?
If there needs be sub-questions, and they are resolved by only a slim majority, then do you have the kind of consensus you should need to act ? Cheers Joe On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
