On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:34:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > But we're stuck with supermajority and quorum requirements for the > moment because the current Constitution mandates them; Ian Jackson wrote > it that way and apparently no one foresaw the difficulties they would > cause our voting system. We're not stuck with them, and they don't cause any difficulties with the voting system. It's trivial to do an approval vote to determine supermajority support as well as a Condorcet vote to choose between alternatives. You can do it either on a single ballot: [ 1 ] [ Y ] Remove non-free [ 2 ] [ Y ] Limit non-free to doc packages only [ 3 ] Move non-free to non-free.debian.org [ 4 ] Further discussion or you can have two separate ballots, the first to decide which alternative is preferred, the second to ensure the preferred alternative has supermajority support: [ 1 ] Remove non-free [ 2 ] Limit non-free to doc packages only [ 3 ] Move non-free to non-free.debian.org [ 4 ] Further discussion [ 1 ] YES [ 2 ] NO [ 3 ] Further discussion Note that you can always do something like: [ 1 ] [ N ] Remove non-free in that sort of voting system if your sincere preference is towards doing nothing, but you're worried that "limit non-free to doc packages only" might have a chance of passing whereas removing it completely won't. The use of the default option to handle supermajorities is intended to be decisive, fairly intuitive, and simple to manage, as compared to the above mechanisms, which are supported by the constitution as it stands. Supermajorities are there to ensure the project stays true to its goals. If you aren't interested in those goals, you have the option of either convincing all but a fringe minority that your goals are better, or of starting your own project. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Description: PGP signature