On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:14:19PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:27:00AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > In contrast, with an electronic vote that's open for an extended period > > and for which quorum is calculated per-vote, classic quorum means it > > may be in your best interest to *not* vote on a particular issue if > > turnout is low, in order to avoid reaching quorum when you don't agree > > with the majority of those participating. In other words, classic > > quorum in Debian would be subject to abuse by strategic *non*-voting, > > which we want to avoid; democracy is most effective when constituents > > have a vested interest in participating, and at a minimum this means > > constituents should never be penalized for voting their true > > preferences. > Perhaps we could have compulsory voting then :-| Why would rendering us unable to block a vote for lack of quorum be a *good* thing? If I'm not voting, it's because I have no opinion on the issue, or don't care enough about the outcome to send an email. If the vast majority of developers feel the same way, why should they be required to participate in a pointless vote? > Is this idea abhorrent to USAns? We have compulsory voting for > government elections in Australia. I heard that new Australian citizens > are told that their two responsibilities as Australian citizens are > jury duty and voting. I don't think my objections have much to do with nationality. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpwfKsMvo1Mw.pgp
Description: PGP signature