From owner-cvs-all Sun Dec 27 21:31:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA23692 for cvs-all-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:31:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles315.castles.com [208.214.167.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA23677 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:31:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA07758; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:27:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199812280527.VAA07758@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Greg Lehey cc: dg@root.com, "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Mike Smith , Warner Losh , committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The recent fracas involving danes, war axes and wounded developers In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Dec 1998 15:54:33 +1030." <19981228155433.X12346@freebie.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:27:33 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > On Sunday, 27 December 1998 at 21:20:01 -0800, David Greenman wrote: > >>> I don't like this; it grants any single core member power of veto, and > >>> that's a current problem with our system already. > >> > >> I could see changing it to a majority vote, but not much less > >> stringent than that. Remember, this is about *removing* stuff and the > >> historical propensity for our users to scream bloody murder when the > >> furby driver, committed by a demented developer at 3am while under the > >> influence of 7 bottles of cough syrup, is taken out. We want to make > >> it just a little harder than normal to remove existing functionality. > > > > I might mention that the policy I proposed to Jordan didn't say > > "unanimous"...it didn't say "majority", either, but that's actually what > > I had in mind. Mike's comment about a quorum is a good one, though, and > > I think this needs to be a majority of core members, not a majority of > > those who vote on the issue. Does this satisfy the concerns? > > You might consider somewhere between unanimous (difficult enough to > achieve that it might cripple the idea) and a simple majority. How > does two thirds sound? How would you count that? Two thirds total core membership, or a two-thirds majority of counted votes? Two thirds requires a fairly high quorum count, which is normally appropriate if the body is likely to be partisan or otherwise divided. I was thinking that if core was fairly unanimous on things that quorum should be quite low (50-60%). -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message