Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)"):
> > Q is defined elsewhere. What constitutes a quorum appears to be defined
> > differrently for differing voting requirements. That is, a simple majority
> > vote requirement has a smaller quorum than a 2:1 voting requirement.
> > But the section goes on to require that the total number of votes cast in
> > favor of the proposal must be equal to or greater than the quorum. If the
> > total votes cast equals the quorum value, this requires that everyone
> > voting vote for the proposal. This contradicts the voting requirements,
> > which for a 2:1 vote only requires 2 out of 3 voters be in favor. This
> > looks like an additional, recursive, requirement on the definition of a
> > quorum.
> I _think_ you seem to be saying that it's not clear whether the quorum
> is increased for a supermajority. It's not intended that it is. I'll
> clarify this in my next draft (0.6).
Not exactly. I think that it is clear that the quorum is defined for a
vote requirement of N:1 as NQ. My problem is that then the paragraph goes
on to say that, for the proposal to pass at least NQ votes must be cast
for the proposal. If the total number of voters is equal to NQ then the
vote must be 100% of the votes cast (not N:1), or you need more votes
(outside the quorum) to pass the proposal. This requires either a
different voting ratio, or a larger voting population (larger quorum), in
order to pass the proposal, which is not what I would expect given the
definition of these quantities.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org