Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Martin Michlmayr <email@example.com> writes:
> * Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2004-02-23 22:03]:
> > > How was this system arrived at?
> > We just made it up, and it sounded about right?
I'd be interested in the rationale for requiring a 2/3 majority for
overriding a "strong rejection"; no organization I know requires a 2/3
majority for anything except changing foundational documents or
similar, and certainly not for overriding a decision made by a single
person which is not even based on a well-defined set of rules.
Similarly, for a "weak rejection", I would really rather not see an
applicant accepted if the DAM is unconvinced and 74% of the NM
committee is against accepting the applicant.
Also I don't think it's sensible to make the decision based on the
total number of committee members, but rather it should be only based
on the number of voting committee members, as is common practise
(perhaps requiring >x% votes to make the vote valid).
In summary, it seems more sensible to me to just decide by majority of
NM committee whether the applicant is accepted, and have the type of
rejection only determine the time frame of reapplication.