On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the
> > soc-ctte to look at the situation and go "there's strong disagreement
> > here and even if we're mostly on one side, we rea
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:55:28AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> There is the oft-mentioned optimal team size of about seven
> active members. http://www.qsm.com/process_01.html
> http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1501
>
> How many more than seven would we need, to expect seven to
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the
> soc-ctte to look at the situation and go "there's strong disagreement here
> and even if we're mostly on one side, we realize that and we should decide
> that we can't really intervene.
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, as I have said before, we should use straight per-candidate
> approval voting.
[...]
> and if more people vote `yes' for Alice than vote `no' for Alice then
> Alice is appointed - regardless of any votes for or against Bob,
> Carol, etc.
Isn't that alwa
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 02:50:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But if there is such an situation and there is heated disagreement
> > outside of this body, how would having only one side of that in the body
> > help? That would only make a body
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 02:54:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The tech-ctte is the example that I think the soc-ctte is partly modelled
> after. It works pretty well and handles internal disagreements, but it's
> aided in that by the fact that the questions are very technical and voting
> is use
6 matches
Mail list logo
