On ven, 2008-02-15 at 22:49 +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 10:09:57PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > On ven, 2008-02-15 at 15:50 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > Having said that, I agree with you that it makes sense for the TC to not > > > require 'X + 1', since the electorate is so small anyway; > > > > I don’t understand why the previous argument wouldn’t apply to a small > > number of voters. > > Because of the error you're making. With 6 people, 2/3 of the votes is > 4 votes, with no error. "more than 2/3" needs 5 votes, or 5/6th. So > even though the stated requirement is "more than 2/3", the actual > requirement is "at least 5/6th". The difference is 1/6th of the votes, > or 16 2/3%. In other words, due to the small sample, the requirement is > more than 16% higher than intended. I know that, but I don’t think this is an “error”. The concept of supermajority is here for things that require a strong consensus; in a body like the TC, which is supposed to base its decisions on technical ground, I don’t think we can say there is strong consensus if only 3 people agree, 1 disagrees and 2 don’t care. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=