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

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

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Yes, that too. :-) But as I wrote, for the 50% situation, there is a
> reason we want that. We want to say "there are more people in favour
> than against". With the supermajority, we want to say "there are
> many more people in favour than against".

Right. My main point is that for pathologically small values of voters
such as this, changing the meaning of super-majority to include
equality means that there is no effective difference between majority
and super-majority. Perhaps this is a bug that should be solved by
increasing the TC membership instead. [If 7 people are voting,
suddenly all of these issues go away; 4/3, 5/2, and 6/1 become the magic
numbers for N of 1, 2 and 3.]

> When the actual value is arbitrary anyway, it makes sense to solve
> it.

All of the values we pick are going to be arbitrary to at least some
degree, so this isn't terribly convincing to me.

Don Armstrong

It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what
makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is
 -- Andrew Suffield in 20030403211305.GD29698@doc.ic.ac.uk

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: