Re: Another proposal.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:14:02PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Likewise, we've never had an official vote where the winning option would
> > have failed to satisfy a 3:1 supermajority requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:23:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Sure we have.
> Wichert did not defeat Richard Braakman by a 3:1 margin.
I had only been thinking about the non-leader votes (since only
on the non-leader votes did I have enough information to run
the CpSSD algorithm).
Also, I'm not sure what the basis would be for having one potential
leader have supermajority requirements and another leader not have
> "DUEL" [sic] license did not defeat "SINGLE" license by even a
> 2:1 margin.
> "SWIRL" defeated "DG" by only 77 to 57.
I was thinking that if we required a supermajority for a logo vote,
we wouldn't apply it selectively to only one class of logo. In other
words, I was thinking that only the default option wouldn't have a
> Ben Collins did not defeat me by a 3:1 margin, nor even 2:1 (149
> to 112).
> Likewise, the 2002 election was not a runaway for any candidate (unless
> you're a Republican, where defeating a Democratic candidate by less than
> one percentage point counts as an "overwhelming mandate" for a
> hard-right conservative agenda.)
That's some other group, not debian.
> > In these votes,
> > the winning option hasn't needed to satisfy that kind of requirement,
> > but even if they had it wouldn't have been a problem.
> Well, yeah, it would have, unless I just plain don't know how to read
> the results, which I suppose is possible.
I'm not sure what you're saying, here.