Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]
----- "Steve Langasek" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It isn't. The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
> an exploit of FPTP.
The point of the super majority was to "engrave the social contract in stone". From the beginning, there was a concern that financial incentives would distort the shape of the organization and we wanted a safeguard against the system being gamed by a commercial organization "buying up" the voting populace. (Microsoft being the primary suspect in that day)
Requiring significant inertia to make fundamental changes to the original plan is not a crazy idea.
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
email@example.com - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315