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

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:06:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 	I think this is not really a matter of screwing up, this is a
>  matter of, in some cases, avoiding the tyranny of the majority;

...a platitude directly rebutted by the paper to which John Robinson

> 	My contention is that there are a number of documents that
>  define what the project is; and that we agreed to follow when we
>  signed on to the project, and any changes to these documents, which
>  cut to the heart of not just the developers, but the whole free
>  software community (the DFSG is known as the gating criteria for free
>  software far beyond the extents of the project), ought to be signed
>  on by _most_ of the developers.

Yes.  Anything more than half is "most", by definition.

> 	So, supermajorities are, in my opinion, still needed for cases
>  where we want a (very) rough consensus, where mere majority ought not
>  be the sole criteria for adopting a measure.

       n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: {general

Hear, hear.  I agree that we should have a rough consensus before
changing such documents.

We just don't need a supermajority to have it.

(Technically, I suppose, we'll always have a supermajority except in
cases where the winning option does so by only one vote.)

G. Branden Robinson                |    Optimists believe we live in the
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    best of all possible worlds.
branden@debian.org                 |    Pessimists are afraid the optimists
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    are right.

Attachment: pgp6Nil_qjBY_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: