Re: Proposed change to Debian constitution
Ysgrifennodd email@example.com ar Sun, Oct 31, 1999 at 12:32:09PM -0800:
> Edward, I can understand your frustration at these various places, but it
> seems that asking for a 3:1 majority is similar to "we don't ever want this
> to happen, but lets look like we should allow it."
Hmm. Yes, that is the same majority that is required to chang the constituion,
so it is quite high. However, it's true that we don't ever want it to
happen, and unless there's a good reason not to close it, I don't think many
people will vote against.
> Perhaps if the ratio were to be lower, 2:1, or replaced with "consensus"
> which appears in other places in the debian documents, I would have more
> reason to accept this. As it is, getting a 3:1 majority will likely never
> happen over the entire developer's community (500+ people, remember..)
It's a majority, not a quorum. If 6 are for and 2 agains, it's passed.
Seems ok for me.
> Also, the definition of "Active" is a bit strong to my tastes. By that
> definition, anyone that goes camping for a weekend is "not active". Anyone
> that ignores their computer to play with their kids for a day is "not
Yes, that is Zephaniah's intention. There should always be two people
around - what if one was sick for a week, and the other was on holiday?
> Of course, those are just nitpicky details. I think the general idea is
> good; barring a good explanation of why it is a bad idea, I can't see why
> a modified version of this (to lower the ratio, and amend the definition of
> "active" so that people aren't tied to their computers seven days a week..)
> shouldn't be added to the constitution.
Good to get some positive feedback :>