On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:10:59 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The plain language of the committee's power to overrule a developer, > in 6.1(4), says `this requires a 3:1 majority'. However if one tech > ctte member dissents the current wording of A.6(3) would _four_ > other ctte members are required, ie a 4:1 majority, as otherwise the > number of yay-sayers would not be _strictly greater_ than 3 times > the number of nay-sayers. Yes, there is a discrepancy between 6.1(4) and A.6(3). If it were possible to have 9 members of the tech ctte, then a 3.5:1 super majority would also be possible, but the ctte seems to ve restricted to 8 members. > The change also had the effect of remvoing the casting vote for > choices between the default option and another option, so for > example if we have 3 votes A:FD:B and 3 votes B:FD:A, then FD would > win, whereas previously the casting vote would decide. > So, I think this is a bug which should be fixed. This one is a difference, but not necessarily a bug. If the committee is so split upon a course of action, and each option is unpalatable to an equal number of members, it does seem reasonable that the default option prevail. If we did get votes like A B : FD (or equal numbers of A:B:FD and B : A : FD votes), then the chairperson still gets to decide between A and B; and again, this makes sense, since the committee wanted a resolution other than the default option, but were split on which option to select. > Manoj, as Secretary, can you confirm that you agree with my > interpretation of A.6(3) ? Do you have an opinion about the > apparent conflict with the plain language of 6.1(4) ? > I think the right fix is to delete the word `strictly'. If we do This is one of two possible options; one could just as easily add the word strictly to 6.1(4). I am personally inclined to remove the "strictly greater" requirement from A.6(3) (indeed, my initial coding up of the vote method in devotee did not adhere to "strictly greater"), but I guess the project membership could decide to go the other route. > delete the word `strictly' it might be better to invent a different > phrase for `defeat[s] the default option' in A.6(3) because `defeats > the default option' in A.6(3) means something different to `defeats > [an option which happens to be the default option]' in A.6(4) > onwards. Perhaps replace `defeats' with `matches'. In a.6.4 onwards, there is no mention of the default option, since it is no longer treated any differently than any other option. I do not see any ambiguity here; perhaps I am missing something. manoj -- Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of sense to know how to lie well. Samuel Butler Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C