Bug#636783: proposed constitution fix for super-majority within the tech ctte
* Anthony Towns (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110806 11:31]:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 07:48, Andreas Barth <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Therefor, I propose to replace this by:
> > A.6.3.2:
> > | An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio of 1,
> > | if V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A). An option A defeats the
> > | default option D by a majority ratio of N, if V(A,D) is equals or
> > | greater than N * V(D,A).
> > (I don't like the ways it's written - better ideas?)
> I don't think it makes sense to have different rules for when M=1 to
> when M=!1; so I'd suggest having a separate "supermajority ratio" that
> does the >= thing, and is never =1.
> Here's a possible patch (fingers crossed that gmail doesn't screw it
> up too badly)
Actually, we could shrink that to:
> - 2. 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).
> + 2. An option A defeats the default option D provided that:
> + (a) V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A); and
> + (b) if a supermajority of N:1 is required, then V(A,D)
> + is greater than or equal to N * V(D/A).
Which I think is better than my proposal.
(Not that I think the other changes are wrong - but somehow I have an
uneasy feeling about editorial-only changes to the constitution.)