Proposed constitution fix for n+1-majorities

[Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>]

Hi,

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.

Consider that e.g. 4 people (out of currently 5) take part in a vote
whether to overrule a developer, and 3 vote for overruling, and 1 against.
Then (according to normal language) we reached the 3:1-majority of
constitution 6.1.4.  However, according to the counting rules, we missed
it.

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


Cheers,
Andi