On 05/01/09 at 23:37 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > >> Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...] > > No. I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and > > suggested without reason. (See my other messages on the topic.) > > After all the mails in the thread, I *think* I go and propose something > very similar to what I initially had, and then either propose an > amendment myself that takes the lower value of Q only[1], or wait for > someone else to do that. I think its best we end up with 2 options on > the vote, > > 1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1] > 2) Increase requirements to Q [3:1] > > and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who > wants to keep the current state of 5 people. That, IMO, should fit > everyone. Agreed: there's no point discussing which number of seconders you want to require now, we just need a ballot with several options. I would also like options: - to explicitely say that we want to stay with 5 (no further discussion needed) - that we want to increase the requirements to 10. (it would probably be a popular compromise between the current 5 and Q) It would be better if you could draft a ballot with all those options yourself (maybe together with someone else). That way, we would have a unified, comprehensible set of options. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature