Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:36:07PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix"):
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 06:16:42PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > 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?
> If the 1:1 majority falls under it too then the proposed text works
> correctly, surely ?
Oh, you would interprete it as that both (a) and (b) would need
to be true. And I already wondered what your intention there was.