Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !"):
> I don't see that removing the word "strictly" has this effect at all.
>
> The quorum for committee votes is 2, which means that each option must
> receive 2 votes preferring it over the default option or it is ignored.
Yes, that's A.6(2). The bug is in A.6(3), which deals with
(super)majorities and the default option. It is A.6(3) which yields
FD from 2x A:FD:B + 2x B:FD:A; with my proposed change A.6(3) doesn't
eliminate A or B and leaves it to A.6(8) and the casting vote.
> Furthermore, 1 is not greater than 1 any more than 1 is strictly greater
> than 1. So even without quorum, I don't see any benefit for this
> case.
Um, you're right in that simply deleting `strictly' from A.6(3)(2)
wouldn't help. `strictly greater' would need to be replaced by `at
least'.
While I'm looking at this, A.6(3)(3) is very oddly phrased and might
turn out to be buggy in the future: if anyone were to introduce a `3:2
supermajority' requirement anywhere that referred to `the Debian vote
counting system' then a literal reading of A.6(3)(3) says that the
majority ratio to use is actually 1 !
Ian.
Reply to: