From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 604E115ACFB for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:24:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 771BDE092D; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CED4E092D for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:24:19 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: "Robin H. Johnson" Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Update of Gentoo metastructure document aka GLEP 39 In-Reply-To: (Ulrich Mueller's message of "Mon, 10 Apr 2023 23:28:27 +0200") References: Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 18:24:14 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.3 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: b303bb87-dfc0-41ed-a76a-739823862d9b X-Archives-Hash: 07e6be2f2df8b54093466c46817e1cd9 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2023, Robin H Johnson wrote: >> 2. I think this would be clearer formatted as a list: >> =3D=3D=3D >> The vote passes if all of the following are satisfied; >> - Ratio of positive to negative votes is at least 2:1 >> - The number of positive votes is at least 1/4 of the number of eligible >> voters. >> - A majority (50% + 1) of developers voted. >> =3D=3D=3D > Let's first discuss these ratios, then how to format them. I also think > that we would want a quorum only for positive votes, not for total > votes, because with the latter a negative vote could make a motion pass. > (Example: 200 eligible voters, 75 yes votes, 25 no votes =3D> motion does > not pass. With one additional no vote it would pass. This violates the > monotonicity criterion [4].) I have converted it to a list, and moved it to its own section: =2D-- a/glep-0039.rst +++ b/glep-0039.rst @@ -206,6 +206,18 @@ =20 8. This proposal has nothing to say about GLEPs. =20 +Updates to this document +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D + +Any major updates to this document (that is, those that change its +content rather than just fixing typos or adding small clarifications) +require a vote of all developers. The vote passes if both of the +following conditions are fulfilled: + +* The ratio of positive to negative votes is at least two to one, and +* the number of positive votes is no less than one quarter of the number + of eligible voters. + References =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFDBAEBCAAtFiEEtDnZ1O9xIP68rzDbUYgzUIhBXi4FAmQ1ia4PHHVsbUBnZW50 b28ub3JnAAoJEFGIM1CIQV4u5OMH/1gVO2G7RYYPGcvtIXLlbwIJ5DlB/QA8WJmf p+DzGAYumyCfIpB82CEh0GMY84u5V0Bsm3s6+wTQRaXHi27MHqLzS7ptKje4KAe+ kiIPiVZL6SDVq8+3f3e12+LEhrHI3zWrSGGdD9tKoFerJLCy7yhAxTqPPxirMeXV jiTE8Gvas5N+8MEVsQPb3LrhlB9emBxe/eMXeA++27j7AbNTBKC0RobFzmcA2l8I mD0kPRJ0DVvct+f3OucqYeAbSu07Zidqb87RYqJGt8vTKAFb1bwNE5+P7kE1x4Qh KBEYNx5A9qL6s9ACkw7yE8fU8ZXOh0s6Oz076YaXtJvm814fZmg= =YykX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--