On 7 February 2014 08:44, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > If Colin joins Ian, Andreas and Steve in voting DT and UT below FD, > then T is dead.
It's really pretty terrible to actively use FD to try to block options that aren't your favourite. Honestly, I would have expected the tech ctte to be able to come to a consensus on a set of proposals considered reasonable by all the members, and accept whatever a majority decided. I'd certainly hope that tech ctte members won't tactically change their vote to try to hack the process. (The obvious counter is for the four members who prefer T to L to vote all the L options below FD in the same way as Andi, Ian and Steve have voted all the T options below FD) (Longer term, it seems to me the vote system would be improved by only allowing voters to cast a vote that ranks the proposed options between themselves, or to vote for Further Discussion (with no ability to express preferences amongst the proposals). Quorum would then be satisfied by having Q votes ranking the options, and a vote would only be blocked if there was 50% or more of voters voting for FD. A similar idea to supermajority requirements could be achieved by allowing proposals to be blocked by 1/N voters voting for FD where N > 2) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <a...@erisian.com.au> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
