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

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.
> http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/vote_0001
> 	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
supermajority requirements.

> http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/result_0002
> 	"DUEL" [sic] license did not defeat "SINGLE" license by even a
> 	2:1 margin.
> http://www.debian.org/vote/1999/result_0004
> 	"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
supermajority requirement.

> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2001/debian-vote-200103/msg00159.html
> 	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.



Reply to: