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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 03:44:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> and people prefer:
> 	Editorial defeats No by 300:20
> 	Editorial defeats Branden's by 170:150
> 	Branden's defeats No by 170:150

Given we've got the 3:1 supermajority requirement now, a better example would

	E defeats B by 200:120
	E defeats N by 300:20  (passes 3:1 supermajority)
	B defeats N by 250:70  (passes 3:1 supermajority)

with example votes (for Branden's, Editorial, No change):
	20x  [231]
	50x  [312]
	100x [123]
	150x [213]

The questions are:

	Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
	wouldn't if reasked anyway, and it fails.

	Does Editorial changes only pass the supermajority clause? If not,
	same thing.

	If one or both of them have been eliminated, the result's obvious.

	Do a majority of developers prefer editorial changes only to removing
	non-free as well? If so, the result is again obvious.

None of these outcomes are "inappropriate".


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
	-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda

Attachment: pgpiEUtM_EOit.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: