[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

# Bug#636783: proposed constitution fix for super-majority within the tech ctte

* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [110806 11:31]:
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 07:48, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> 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.)

Andi