Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix
Sam Hartman writes ("Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix"):
> I'm trying to think of a situation where you'd want m != 1 and where
> there would be an intuitively reasonable understanding of what was
It would be perfectly plausible for some particular thing to need a
ratio of 3:2. That's a clearer way to express it IMO than 1.5:1.
> Absent that, I think it's more important that things be clear and easier
> to understand than that they work for m != 1.
If this is a problem we can leave it.