On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 05:01:25PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (o...@debian.org) [150831 11:23]:
> > Le lundi, 31 août 2015, 11.04:59 Axel Beckert a écrit :
>
> > > As far as I understand this would mean proposing an alternative choice
> > > for the voter. In that case, the damage is already done and cannot be
> > > undone. This IMHO only makes sense if I'd propose different
> > > semantics.
> >
> > The GR proposer can accept formal wording changes directly on his
> > amendment proposal (§A.1.5).
> >
> > I think the change would clarify the GR for more voters than only you,
> > so I'm hereby asking Andreas whether he'd accept a wording change on his
> > GR proposal as follows (%s/fencepost/off-by-one/g), under §A.1.5:
> >
> > --- a/vote_002
> > +++ b/vote_002
> > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> > Committee could overrule a Developer with a supermajority of 3:1.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the definition of supermajorities in the SSD GR has a
> > [-fencepost-]{+off-by-one+} error. In the new text a supermajority
> > requirement is met only if the ratio of votes in favour to votes
> > against is strictly greater than the supermajority ratio.
> >
> > @@ -78,9 +78,9 @@
> > votes (whether General Resolutions or votes in the Technical
> > Committee) in progress at the time the change is made.
> >
> > The effect is to fix the [-fencepost-]{+off-by-one+} bug, and
> > arrange that failing asupermajority voids the whole decision (or
> > makes it advisory), rather than promoting another option. The
> > [-fencepost-]{+off-by-one+} bugfix will also have a (negligible)
> > effect on any General Resolutions requiring supermajorities. And
> > after this change the TC chair can choose a non-default option even
> > if it is tied with a default
>
> Accepted.
I got a bad signature on this message.
Kurt
