[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Let’s not make GRs with mixtures of 3:1 and 1:1 majority options anymore. (was: Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues)

On Sat May 02 18:48, Charles Plessy wrote:
> [I lost the option 3]

As many people have spotted, there was no option 3

> I think that it was a good idea (and a lot of work, thank you for that) to
> prepare options that reflect the different opinion expressed in the previous
> discussion, but I would recommend that each of them should be sponsored
> separately, so that there is a chance to reduce the complexity of the ballot if
> some do not manage to attract enough sponsors.

Well, I was trying mainly to reduce mails. People should certainly be
able to second options independently, I hope kurt will allow people to
reply to the whole mail seconding only subsets of the ballot.

> The biggest problem of the “Lenny release” vote – in my opinion – was the
> mixture of supermajority and simple majority options. I am tempted to propose
> another option, that would change the constitution so that supermajority
> applies to whole votes and is decided at the beginning of the process. In short:

I think this is quite a good idea, but I think orthogonal to the items
in this ballot.


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: