[darcs-users] wording for SFC agreement (oversight committee again)
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Fri Dec 19 03:38:24 UTC 2008
Eric Kow writes:
> There were some questions about rounding and tie votes, but I think we
> can address those by making explicit that we shall err on the side of
> conservatism (for example, abstentions could be counted as a vote for
> the status quo, and any ties will be resolved in favour of the status
> quo).
IIRC you have an odd number of members, so that can be simplified to
"must be approved by a simple majority of members." (Ie, not a
majority of votes must be yes, but a majority of members must vote
yes, to approve a change.) That's pretty strong, though it may be
appropriate.
More information about the darcs-users
mailing list