[Fwd: Re: [GRASS5] Proposal: RFC 1: Project Steering Committee Guidelines]

Brad Douglas rez at touchofmadness.com
Fri Apr 28 02:15:25 EDT 2006

On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 19:19 +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:
> On 4/27/06, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com> wrote:
> > > Why using the majority is not smooth?
> >
> > The problem is that if 4 people vote for something and 3 vote against it,
> > and it is considered passed anyways it can result in alot of bad feelings.
> > The "Apache way" is to try and reach consensus.  Any sort of overruling is
> > seen as a last resort.
> That _seems_ to be reasonable, but then it should be for example +20%
> not +2 votes.
> But I think that it realy just seems to be rasonable because
> if you set some +x or +x% limit then the result depends on the question.
> Basicaly if you ask 'are you for' or 'are you against'?
> If I know that it is controversial question and it will not pass,
> I can revert the question to get the result I want.
> It can seem to be absurd but I saw such a 'referendum' in real life.
> They just wanted the result 'no' so they asked 'are you in favour of this?'
> The majority voted 'yes' but the result was 'no' because the majority
> was not big enough because of a rule similar to +x%.

Good point.  Hopefully we can keep "politics" out of this.

Also, I object to the use of +/-0.  How is that supposed to be
quantified?  What are the implications when it comes to tie breaking?

Brad Douglas <rez touchofmadness com>                      KB8UYR
Address: 37.493,-121.924 / WGS84    National Map Corps #TNMC-3785

More information about the grass-dev mailing list