Re: Draft GR for supermajority fix

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

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
> intended.

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.

Ian.