As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic
voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose
that we don't fix that, but trust ourselves to propose ballot options
that are statement-of-the-day-like ballot options not requiring a
super-majority when do
* Sam Hartman , 2015-09-04, 12:03:
Unfortunately, the definition of supermajorities in the SSD GR has a
fencepost error.
Please say "off-by-one" rather than "fencepost". See this sub-thread for
rationale: https://lists.debian.org/20150831082617.gs9...@sym.noone.org
if V(A,D) is greater than
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
--- doc/constitution.wml(revision 10982)
+++ doc/constitution.wml(working copy)
@@ -913,7 +913,7 @@
An option A defeats the default option D by a majority
- ratio N, if V(A,D) is
Restated to fix comments received.
For formality, to the extent that I am able, I withdraw my previous
amendment.
As I discussed, in Andreas's resolution, I think that the strategic
voting fix introduces more problems than it serves. INstead, I propose
that we don't fix that, but trust ourselves
Fixed, I hope; thanks.
Hi Sam,
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 02:28:20PM +, Sam Hartman wrote:
>- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
>
>
>Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix
>
>Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical
>Committee could overrule a Developer with a supermajori
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 05:34:44PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> However, as I've said in <20150903164145.gb23...@grep.be>, I think the
> better fix is to update 6.1.4 as follows:
>
> -4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 3:1 majority)
> +4. Overrule a Developer (requires a 2:1 majority)
* Sam Hartman , 2015-09-04, 14:28:
- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajority Fix
Prior to the Clone Proof SSD GR in June 2003, the Technical
Committee could overrule a Developer with a supermajority of 3:1.
Unfortunately, the definition of supe
8 matches
Mail list logo
