On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 11:38:36AM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> Therefore, provided a good compromise is proposed by someone, there should
> never be any radical changes in policy, merely gradual evolution. In this
> case, supermajority requirements simply undermine the democratic character
> of a
Anthony Towns writes:
> I'm not sure this is an ideal way of looking at things from Debian's
> perspective. The usual decision making process in Debian is (supposed
> to be) one of reaching consensus on an issue, not one of democracy,
> per se. I tend to look at consensus as an attempt to disenf
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 11:38:36AM -0600, Norman Petry wrote:
> Therefore, provided a good compromise is proposed by someone, there should
> never be any radical changes in policy, merely gradual evolution. In this
> case, supermajority requirements simply undermine the democratic character
> of
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure this is an ideal way of looking at things from Debian's
> perspective. The usual decision making process in Debian is (supposed
> to be) one of reaching consensus on an issue, not one of democracy,
> per se. I tend to look at consensus as
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Norman Petry wrote:
> I agree with you that supermajority requirements don't make much sense when
> using the 'Concorde' (Condorcet's) method. Usually, a supermajority
> requirement is used to prevent drastic flip-flops in the basic policies of
> an organisation. [...]
> Ther
5 matches
Mail list logo
