Re: supermajority options
>>"Chris" == Chris Lawrence <email@example.com> writes:
Chris> On Nov 24, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> How do we know this would happen at all, let alone "ad nauseum"?
Chris> I can't prove that it *would* happen, but it's a definite
Chris> It also encourages proponents to compromise with opponents
Chris> (thus encouraging consensus), as gathering a 2:1 margin is
Chris> relatively hard.
I think this is a critical point. Ideally, a volunteer project
would work with unanimity; we would all be of like mind, as in the
halcyon days of yore. And we would all work in lockstep, in perfect
accord, and so on. Unfortunately, reality sets in, and we are
unlikely to reach unanimity in most decisions.
A supermajority is the next best thing: it makes people work
towards a compromise, a position that has the buy in of all but a
Photographing a volcano is just about the most miserable thing you
can do. Robert B. Goodman [Who has clearly never tried to use a
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C