On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 01:27:11PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:30:16AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:37:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > > [ ] Choice 1: Clone Proof SSD Condorcet Amendment > > > [ ] Choice 2: Further Discussion > > > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Adding a "no" option would make things very complicated. You see, > the "yes" option needs a supermajority. Actually, we'd handle it this way: * First we'd have a vote on which resolution we want to pass (A.3.1), which would have as option for the original proposal and any amendments, and Further Discussion. Since there weren't any amendments that received enough seconds, it would look exactly like the above. This vote doesn't require a supermajority or a quorum. * Then, once that vote was decided, we'd have a "final vote" (A.3.2) whether to pass the resolution, the options on that ballot being "Yes", "No" and "Further Discussion". That one requires a supermajority of votes to rank Yes above No, and a supermajority to rank Yes above Further Discussion to pass (A.6.7) > Our voting system is currently not able to deal with that > in a sane way; we'd need to upgrade it somehow first. HTH. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature