Re: Bug#210879: constitution.txt: fractured developers
Alfie Costa <agcosta@gmx.net> writes:
> A. Suffield says:
>
> > No he didn't. He said that 4 > 3.141592. That is not "rounding". It is
> > merely the case that the lowest natural number which equals or is
> > greater than 3.141592 is 4. That does not change the value of K in any
> > sense.
>
> Good old 'gdict' says of the adjective 'round':
>
> 4. Full; complete; not broken; not fractional; approximately
> in even units, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc.; -- said of
> numbers.
>
> Pliny put a round number near the truth, rather than
> the fraction. --Arbuthnot.
>
> Something is being rounded, and the resulting quantity enumerates
> developers. But is 'K' the number of developers?
>
> > You keep assuming that K is the number of developers.
>
> The total number of developers? Not at all. I read in Section
> 4.2.2.7 that:
>
> K <== minimum( 5 , sqrt(Total developers)/2 )
>
> However, I think 'K' is used equivocaly at present. Its usage and
> meaning should be made exact.
>
> Consider the usage in Section 4.2.2.3:
>
> "If the original decision was... then only K Developers need to sponsor
> the resolution..."
This is in fact a problem.
> A skit: Mr. Smith goes to the Debian Supermarket (their slogan: "where
> prices are never rounded") to buy a cake advertised on sale for "Only
> $4.50". Smith picks a cake off the shelf, and gives the guy at the
> checkout $4.50. The checkout guy says "that'll be five dollars."
> Smith shows the CG the ad, and the CG says, "we only give change in
> dollars". Smith says "but prices are never rounded...". CG says
> "Yes, but we only take dollars." Smith says, "well why not round
> down? Your ad says 'only' which means 'not more than', so it should
> be 4 dollars." CG says "here at Debian 'only' means 'at least'.
> That'll be $5. Thanks for shopping at Debian Sir."
There is a big difference between dollar and developers : one can
have an half of a dollar, one cannot be a half of a developers.
You should try a more meaningful example.
--
Rémi Vanicat
remi.vanicat@laposte.net
Reply to: