Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
On Tue, 27 May 2003 22:25:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Sam Hartman wrote:
>> And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized
>> what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a
>> proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother.
> I think that word works well; we already have established that
> ranking an option WRT the default option is equivalent to checking
> (or not) that option on an approval ballot.
> There's not much difference between adding a sentence which states
> that the word "quorum", as used in the proposal / the constitution,
> is not used with its commonly-accepted meaning, and defining our
> usage of the word "approvals".
s/quorum/minimum threshold for approval/g ?
How do the other sponsors feel about this?
Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness
of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." David
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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