From owner-cvs-all  Sun Dec 27 21:45:25 1998
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA25198
          for cvs-all-outgoing; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:45:25 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from po3.wam.umd.edu (po3.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.165])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA25188
          for <committers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 27 Dec 1998 21:45:21 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from culverk@wam.umd.edu)
Received: from rac1.wam.umd.edu ((IDENT root)@rac1.wam.umd.edu [128.8.10.141])
	by po3.wam.umd.edu (8.9.0.Beta6/8.9.0.Beta6) with ESMTP id AAA04107;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:44:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rac1.wam.umd.edu ((IDENT sendmail)@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by rac1.wam.umd.edu (8.9.0.Beta6/8.9.0.Beta6) with SMTP id AAA25583;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:44:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by rac1.wam.umd.edu (8.9.0.Beta6/8.9.0.Beta6) with SMTP id AAA25578;
	Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:44:33 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: rac1.wam.umd.edu: culverk owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:44:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu>
To: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>,
        Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>,
        committers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: The recent fracas involving danes, war axes and wounded developers 
In-Reply-To: <199812280536.VAA05896@implode.root.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95q.981228004412.25381A-100000@rac1.wam.umd.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk



On Sun, 27 Dec 1998, David Greenman wrote:

> >>    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?
> 
>    I thought about that, but it is difficult to get a quorum large enough
> to satisfy that requirement. Most of the time only 2/3rds or less of the
> core team members cast a vote. I won't offer any excuses as to why this
> is the case.
> 
Maybe 2/3rds of the people that reply???

Kenneth culver


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message