Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 11:53:38PM +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I beg to differ :). I have taken a look at Ian's proposal with
> > using sqrt(people allowed to vote) instead of a fixed ratio of
> > 50%. That doesn't solve the general underlying problem of "not
> > voting" generating a bias against the appealer, but it makes such
> > a negative effect less likely, so I would consider this at least
> > a lot better than a fixed 50% ratio.
>
> The problem with deleting the sentence is that only 1 person
> voting can decide on the result. You really want to have a minimum
> of people voting. And once you introduce some kind of quorum,
> there is always a (small) advantage for the status quo, but it
> assumes they organize themselves to try and take advantage of it.
This isn't really correct. With Ian's proposal there is no way to
vote tacticly, there is just a minimum amount of people that need
to vote, but that's still in the advantage of the status quo.
Kurt
Reply to: