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

Re: supermajority options


Branden Robinson:
> Yes.  Anything more than half is "most", by definition.
Not in my book. Sorry.

>   consensus
>        n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: {general
>            agreement}]
The dictionary where you found that definition needs to be taken out and
shot. Now. In my book, "consensus" means that _everybody_ either expresses
agreement, or abstains. "Rough consensus" would be 75% pro and almost
nobody against.

> Hear, hear.  I agree that we should have a rough consensus before
> changing such documents.
Me too. I'd draw the line about what "rough consensus" might mean at a
2:1 supermajority or so, and personally I'd be somewhat uncomfortable
if the core documents could be changed easier.

> 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.)
Yeah, so you habe a 1001:1000 supermajority.  :-/  Not Helpful.

Matthias Urlichs     |     noris network AG     |     http://smurf.noris.de/

Attachment: pgp38jwWtZozs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: