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

Re: Supermajority requirement off-by-one error, and TC chairmanship

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?=

Reply to: