Hi, this is a proposal to fix the n+1-bug in the constitution:
In A.6.3.2, this sentence is changed: An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio N, if V(A,D) is strictly greater than N * V(D,A). to: An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio 1, if V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A), or (for N > 1) if V(A,D) is at least N * V(D,A). Background: In case of majority requirements N > 1, we require that more than N * people vote in favour of the option than against (instead of "at least N *"). This isn't a real issue for normal GRs, but it is an issue for the tech ctte. Consider that e.g. 4 people (out of currently 5) take part in a vote whether to overrule a developer, and 3 vote for overruling, and 1 against. Then (according to normal language) we reached the 3:1-majority of constitution 6.1.4. However, according to the counting rules, we missed it. Comments on this? If that's ok for the tech ctte, I'll sent it to vote and ask for seconds. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
