Afternoon internals, I was wrong about it not changing, and wrong about only needing a week.
In fact, after some more thinking time, and re-reading everything here, I'll present a revised, slightly larger RFC. We'll start discussion, for the full two weeks, from the beginning, when revised RFC is ready ... Sorry about the noise, and thanks for all your input so far ... I'll be back ... Cheers Joe On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote: > 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 >> > >
