[aur-general] discussion about activity

[Daniel Micay]

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Sam Stuewe <halosghost at archlinux.info> wrote:
> 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

That's a good point, I agree.