Hi, Buddha Buck: > You (and Matthias) seem to be assuming that if quorum isn't reached, > then the ballot measures should be shot down. I and John are saying > that if quorum isn't reached, then the trigger hasn't been pulled yet > (to stretch a metaphor). > > You are also applying quorum requirements to individual options on the > ballot, rather than the vote as a whole. I've rarely seen that use of a > quorum in the past. > Exactly. I was assuming that the requirement for a quorum, like the one for a supermajority, is an externally imposed one, e.g. if the constitution says that there's a 2:1 super requirement for any change and only option A changes it, then I need to apply the 2:1 rule to option A, and option A _only_. Same with quorums. And in that context I think a "total number of participants" rule is dangerous -- see my earlier mail. However, if the quorum should apply to the vote in total (i.e., "how many people show up") in a traditional sense, so that the vote effectively didn't happen if they don't, then I'm perfectly happy with the way you and John want to apply it. > That is in line with how I would normally interpret a quorum. Tell that to the politicians around here. :-/ -- Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
Attachment:
pgp0l6nRkRksw.pgp
Description: PGP signature