Re: Proposed constitution fix for n+1-majorities

[Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk>]

Andreas Barth writes ("Proposed constitution fix for n+1-majorities"):
> this is a proposal to fix the n+1-bug in the constitution:
> 
> In A.6.3.2, this sentence is changed:
>   An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio N, if V(A,D)
>   is strictly greater than N * V(D,A).
> to:
>   An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio 1, if V(A,D)
>   is strictly greater than V(D,A), or (for N > 1) if V(A,D) is at least N *
>   V(D,A).
> 
> Background: In case of majority requirements N > 1, we require that more
> than N * people vote in favour of the option than against (instead of "at
> least N *"). This isn't a real issue for normal GRs, but it is an issue for
> the tech ctte.

I think this is fine.

There are various equivalent alternative formulations.  For example,
  An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio N,
  if V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A) and V(A,D)
  is at least N * V(D,A).
but your phrasing is clearer :-).

> Comments on this? If that's ok for the tech ctte, I'll sent it to vote and
> ask for seconds.

There is much discussion in debian-vote about the aftermath of the
lenny firmware GR.  There will probably be some constitutional
amendments coming out of that.

Perhaps we should hold off until lenny is released and those are ready
too, so that people can do it all in a batch ?

Ian.