Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > You actually propose two separate amendments. Please don't do that, it > smells of politics. :-/
the changes are related, if just 2 was changed, then the majority requirements in 3 have an undesired side-effect. let me find that message . . = http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200305/msg00046.html = = If no supermajority is required the majority ratio is 1, = which means that the option is dropped if V(A,D) < V(D,A)+1. = So this implements a quorum of 1 in the sense of the original = draft for all options. > The point of wording it the "old" way was that any option which is ranked > below the default by a majority is removed before starting the algorithm. Not correct. The original proposal simply threw out the voter's intent iff the option did not have R+1 people ranking it higher than default. this is where the concept of quorum is being mis-applied. this is what is being fixed. > That is intentional; otherwise, a case can be constructed where such an > option could win, which is Not Good. a much easier and likely case can be constructed where an otherwise winning option is dropped before consideration, which is Even Worse. -john
