* Anthony Towns (a...@azure.humbug.org.au) [110806 11:31]: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 07:48, Andreas Barth <a...@not.so.argh.org> wrote: > > Therefor, I propose to replace this by: > > > > A.6.3.2: > > | An option A defeats the default option D by a majority ratio of 1, > > | if V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A). An option A defeats the > > | default option D by a majority ratio of N, if V(A,D) is equals or > > | greater than N * V(D,A). > > (I don't like the ways it's written - better ideas?) > > I don't think it makes sense to have different rules for when M=1 to > when M=!1; so I'd suggest having a separate "supermajority ratio" that > does the >= thing, and is never =1. > Here's a possible patch (fingers crossed that gmail doesn't screw it > up too badly)
Actually, we could shrink that to: > - 2. 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). > + 2. An option A defeats the default option D provided that: > + (a) V(A,D) is strictly greater than V(D,A); and > + (b) if a supermajority of N:1 is required, then V(A,D) > + is greater than or equal to N * V(D/A). Which I think is better than my proposal. (Not that I think the other changes are wrong - but somehow I have an uneasy feeling about editorial-only changes to the constitution.) Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110806114848.go15...@mails.so.argh.org