Manoj Srivastava writes (Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !):
[stuff about voting methods]
I think I've lost the plot now. I can't remember what the original
point of this subthread was. I think I was trying to convince you
that allowing options equal the default option to pass
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 11:49:55PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
While I'm looking at this, A.6(3)(3) is very oddly phrased and might
turn out to be buggy in the future: if anyone were to introduce a `3:2
supermajority' requirement anywhere that referred to `the Debian vote
counting system' then a
Raul Miller writes (Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !):
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:53:41AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
IME people nearly always put FD ahead of the options they disagree
with.
However, it's possible for people to think that two options
are acceptable, even
Ian Jackson writes (Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !):
amended a ballot A:B:FD count against A in A-vs-B due to the the
^can
Ian.
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
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:53:41AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
IME people nearly always put FD ahead of the options they disagree
with.
However, it's possible for people to think that two options
are acceptable, even though they have a distinct preference
for one over the other.
--
Raul
6 matches
Mail list logo
