Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !
On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:10:59 +0100, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:
> The plain language of the committee's power to overrule a developer,
> in 6.1(4), says `this requires a 3:1 majority'. However if one tech
> ctte member dissents the current wording of A.6(3) would _four_
> other ctte members are required, ie a 4:1 majority, as otherwise the
> number of yay-sayers would not be _strictly greater_ than 3 times
> the number of nay-sayers.
Yes, there is a discrepancy between 6.1(4) and A.6(3). If it
were possible to have 9 members of the tech ctte, then a 3.5:1 super
majority would also be possible, but the ctte seems to ve restricted
to 8 members.
> The change also had the effect of remvoing the casting vote for
> choices between the default option and another option, so for
> example if we have 3 votes A:FD:B and 3 votes B:FD:A, then FD would
> win, whereas previously the casting vote would decide.
> So, I think this is a bug which should be fixed.
This one is a difference, but not necessarily a bug. If the
committee is so split upon a course of action, and each option is
unpalatable to an equal number of members, it does seem reasonable
that the default option prevail. If we did get votes like A B : FD
(or equal numbers of A:B:FD and B : A : FD votes), then the
chairperson still gets to decide between A and B; and again, this
makes sense, since the committee wanted a resolution other than the
default option, but were split on which option to select.
> Manoj, as Secretary, can you confirm that you agree with my
> interpretation of A.6(3) ? Do you have an opinion about the
> apparent conflict with the plain language of 6.1(4) ?
> I think the right fix is to delete the word `strictly'. If we do
This is one of two possible options; one could just as easily
add the word strictly to 6.1(4). I am personally inclined to remove
the "strictly greater" requirement from A.6(3) (indeed, my initial
coding up of the vote method in devotee did not adhere to "strictly
greater"), but I guess the project membership could decide to go the
other route.
> delete the word `strictly' it might be better to invent a different
> phrase for `defeat[s] the default option' in A.6(3) because `defeats
> the default option' in A.6(3) means something different to `defeats
> [an option which happens to be the default option]' in A.6(4)
> onwards. Perhaps replace `defeats' with `matches'.
In a.6.4 onwards, there is no mention of the default option,
since it is no longer treated any differently than any other
option. I do not see any ambiguity here; perhaps I am missing
something.
manoj
--
Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of sense to know
how to lie well. Samuel Butler
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: