Bug#210879: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Bug#210879: constitution.txt: revise odd language -- "K Developers"... "not integers"]
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:38:43 +0200, Josip Rodin <email@example.com> said:
> Hi Manoj, Please make sure this gets somewhere. I'll keep the bug
> open for now.
> Subject: Bug#210879: constitution.txt: revise odd language -- "K
> Developers"... "not integers" To: Debian Bug Tracking System
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> X-Debian-PR-Package: doc-debian X-Sent: 6
> hours, 2 minutes, 35 seconds ago
> Package: doc-debian Version: 3.0.2 Severity: wishlist
> There's some odd language in
> 1 A resolution or amendment is introduced if proposed by any
> Developer 2 and sponsored by at least K other Developers...
> ...and the number 'K' is later defined, in part, as follows:
> 3 Q and K need not be integers and are not rounded.
> This implies fractional Developers.
No, it does not. The language specifically states that you
need *AT LEAST* K developers, so if K is not a natural number, you
have to have a natural number larger than k -- no need for fractional
> In line #2 above the author must have meant an integer, (or rather a
> natural number -- there aren't any negative numbers of Developers),
> but saying "at least" leaves room for doubt, especially since line
> #3 says K isn't rounded!
The language is correct as it stands.
> Example: suppose K=4.4; but by line #3 'K' is not rounded, (if it
> were we'd know a quorum would be at least 5, or 4.4 rounded up), and
> if it's not rounded then .4 of a Developer means who knows what.
No, K is not rounded. So, 4 developers do not make a quorum,
since 4 < 4.4. 5 developers, on the other hand, make a quorum, since
5 > 4.4
> For line #3 I suggest changing 'integers' to 'natural numbers' or
> 'whole numbers', and 'and are not rounded' to 'and are rounded up
> when counting people, but not when counting votes.' ...or something
> to the same effect.
I would strongly oppose such a GR. We do not need to bring in
confusion about rounding up or rounding down -- right now, there is
no confusion, mathematically speaking, about the comparison.
> (Of course we all know a Constitution is by design not as easy to
> amend as a garden variety typo. Difficulty shouldn't justify errors
The constitution is not in error -- there does seem to be user
error in understanding that one can indeed compare integers with real
Bistromathics is simply a revolutionary new way of understanding the
behavior of numbers. Just as Einstein observed that space was not an
absolute, but depended on the observer's movement in space, and that
time was not an absolute, but depended on the observer's movement in
time, so it is now realized that numbers are not absolute, but depend
on the observer's movement in restaurants. Douglas Adams
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C