Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions"):
> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > Therefore the clause "If more than half of the NMC (excluding DAM) abstain
> > or do not vote, the decision is not overturned" would IMHO need to be
> > removed completely from the rules.
...
> So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the
> vote goes, I don't think just deleting that one sentence is it. But
> I'm not an expert in voting systems, so am happy for any
> input. Could go with a quorum (and then count abstains for it) and
> requiring a (3 quarter?) majority of voters?! Could go with
> something else? Somebody come up with a nice thing, please. :)
I'll bit. Having some kind of quorum requirement is a good idea.
Yours is not ideal because it is non-monotonic. Specifically, the
sometimes best way to defeat something would be to simply not vote, so
that the 50% quorum is not reached.
I suggest instead that you say that the decision is not overturned
unless supported by (i) at least sqrt() of the eligible voters
(ii) strictly more than 50% of the people voting.
sqrt is a good function here because it adjust the quorum proportion
according to the voting pool. If for some reason only a small number
of people are available/eligible, the quorum is most of them.
Currently you say there are 17 so a revocation decision would have to
be supported by at least ~4.123 people, ie (since supporters only come
in whole numbers) at least 5. That is close to the implied 25% of
your proposal.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: