In the original constitution, which can be seen here: http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.1.0 in order to overrule a maintainer we need a 3:1 supermajority including the chairman (because it counts as a tie). I think the need for the chairman to agree in this case is a mistake.
In the `tidyups' which included switching to Schwartz Sequential Dropping, seen in the current constitution: http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution this was changed. See A.6(3), and note the use of the words `strictly greater'. The effect of this with large electorates is largely irrelevant, but with a small electorate like the Technical Committee, it effectively increases the supermajority requirement. 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. 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. 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 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'. Ian.
