[aur-general] discussion about activity

[Sam Stuewe]

On 2013-08-07 11:33, Sam Stuewe wrote:
> and non-votes are not the same as "no votes". Perhaps, instead of a
> super majority, requiring no less than a certain number of no votes
> would be a good idea. For instance, allowing 50%+1 to pass so long as
> there are no more than 33% would be a fairly functional model.
To clarify, that would be "so long as there are no more than 33% voting 
against." This creates an artificial super-majority which still only 
requiring a simple majority to pass.
> All the best,
> 
> -Sam