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
smoking.
-- Andrew Suffield in 20030403211305.GD29698@doc.ic.ac.uk
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: