Re: supermajority options

["John H. Robinson, IV" <jhriv@ucsd.edu>]

Branden Robinson wrote:
> 
> > Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement
> > (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which
> > changes the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more
> > severe for our current set of developers than that of any draft I've
> > proposed)?
> 
> While it is true that I think quorum requirements are superfluous as
> well, I don't see perceive them carrying the same baggage as
> supermajority requirements, so I would not object to your above
> proposal.

i have no problem with any quorum requirement provided the following
points are met:

1) it is a reasonable number
   * in a body as large as Debian, 90% quorum would be unreasonable.
   * 25% i think is getting close to the upper end.
   * 1.5*sqrt(num of electorate) seems low, but acceptable.
   * for comparison, what was the voter turnout for the last few votes?

2) quorum applies to _entire_ ballots returned, not specific entries on
   the ballots.

3) failure to meet quorum results in a thrown out vote 
   * as if the vote had never taken place 
   * as a reasonable option, though not preferred, the Default Option of
     Further Discussion is declared the winner.
   * but that leads to the point: how can a vote be binding, if quorum
     was not met?

-john