Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi, John H. Robinson, IV:i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants toconduct business.
[Matthias's comments rearranged...]
Sorry, but I don't like that. With a quorum, the people against a proposal need to actively solicit support for their objection if they want to defeat it. That's good democracy. Defeating the proposal by walking out is bad democracy.
In parliamentary terms, "conducting business" means "making decisions by vote". Normally, a measure can't be defeated by lack of quorum. If there is a lack of quorum, no vote can be held -- or if a vote is held before quorum is determined to be lacking, the vote isn't binding.
Bringing this quorum principle over to Debian, the most straight forward rule would be that if there aren't enough participants in the balloting, then the status is reset to what it was before the vote -- i.e., nothing is defeated, nothing is passed, nothing is decided. Another ballot is advertised and distributed (perhaps after a short period), and another vote is held.
That may not be the best option -- there may be better solutions, like dimising the ballot options without prejudice, requiring the proposers to repropose them (if the proposals were dead, that shouldn't be possible), or defaulting to "further discusion", etc.
> OK. Let's say we have a quorum of 90 and a supermajority of 2:1. 70 people are for the proposal, 30 against => the proposal wins. 70 people are for the proposal, 10 against, the remaining 20 refuse tovote => the proposal fails.
What do you mean "the proposal fails"? Is it dead, and can't be resurrected? Is it up for "further discusion", with a future revote? I feel that a lack of quorum shouldn't be able to kill a measure, but forcing another vote on the issue after further discussion is fine, IMHO.
IMHO.