Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:16:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 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 ?
No, that's clear at all. The 1:1 majority would fall under that
too. How about something where N > M?
> > > 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.
So just make you call for vote for all of them during the same