Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix"):
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:11:21AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> M currently can only be 1.
That might change. It would be nice to fix this definition so that it
works for N:M as well as N:1.
> I'm also not very happy with the wording of supermajority. It's
> not really defined what it means, but is used. For instance
> 22.214.171.124 talks about a "3:1 majority" and not about a
> supermajority. I will probably translate this to if N > 1
> for use in devotee.
Please do feel free to suggest improvements to the wording. I want
this to be clear and unambiguous.
How about if we s/supermajority/majority/ in what I just proposed ?
> > For the avoidance of any doubt, this change does not affect any
> > votes (whether General Resolutions or votes in the Technical
> > Committee) in progress at the time the change is made.
> This also means that either all votes will start and stop at the
> same time, or the next one will have to wait until this vote is
> over. I don't want to run 2 instances of devotee.
How you implement this is up to you, I think, but 1. clearly it would
be wrong to have a GR which affected the rules for a vote currently in
progress and 2. we don't want to hold the whole lot sequentially.
Certainly we would like to run all the votes concurrently.