* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140228 12:15]:
> Andreas Barth writes ("Bug#636783: TC constitutional issues"):
> > * Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140227 19:27]:
> > > * 2:1 supermajority for TC overrides should be abolished (se
Andreas Barth writes ("Bug#636783: TC constitutional issues"):
> * Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140227 19:27]:
> > * 2:1 supermajority for TC overrides should be abolished (seems
> >we are probably agreed on this - speak now if not)
>
> I pre
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140227 19:27]:
> * 2:1 supermajority for TC overrides should be abolished (seems
>we are probably agreed on this - speak now if not)
I prefer if any decision to override the TC is statistically safe,
i.e. not just one vote above 50%. For the in
Bdale Garbee writes:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>> * Possible minimum discussion period for TC resolutions.
> I'd prefer this not change. The circumstances that led to my recent use
> of no-wait CFVs was extremely unusual, and in the past we've used this
> ability to quickly come to closure on iss
Ian Jackson writes:
> * 2:1 supermajority for TC overrides should be abolished (seems
>we are probably agreed on this - speak now if not)
I'm fine with this.
> * FD threshold needs to be >= always, not >. Requirement to get
>>> 4/8 voting X > FD was exploitable and bad news.
There h
Briefly, mostly for my own notes:
* 2:1 supermajority for TC overrides should be abolished (seems
we are probably agreed on this - speak now if not)
* FD threshold needs to be >= always, not >. Requirement to get
>> 4/8 voting X > FD was exploitable and bad news.
* Possible minimum dis
6 matches
Mail list logo
