Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
>>>>> "Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> writes:
Nathanael> Raul Miller wrote:
Nathanael> No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always
Nathanael> opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing
Nathanael> up to oppose something always count toward quorum.
Nathanael> That's why Manoj's system is not a quorum system; it
Nathanael> only counts people coming to vote *for* something, not
Nathanael> people coming to vote that it's unacceptable. This is
Nathanael> why I said that nobody here really seems to want a
Nathanael> quorum system.
Nathanael> Quorum is about number of people showing up for
Nathanael> *discussion*, not *approving*.
I think I'm willing to agree with you here that quorum is not a great
name for what we have in Manoj's proposal.
And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized
what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a
proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother.
But whatever it's called, the discussion has convinced me at least
that it seems to be a good idea, especially including how it interacts
with the default option. There may be a better idea, but you have not
yet presented one.
And personally I don't think disagreement over whether quorum is a
reasonable name for what Manoj's proposing is a good reason to prefer
the default option to his proposal.