Re: Quorum and factors of two [Was: Re: Status update on the election]
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> >>"Miguel" == Miguel Wooding SF Ten Union <mwooding@thecity.sfsu.edu> writes:
>
> Miguel> To pick a nit here, "quorum", as used in the Debian Constitution,
> Miguel> doesn't carry the usual meaning of the number of people who must
> Miguel> participate in a vote for the result to carry, but rather the number
> Miguel> of votes that must prefer the winning option to the default
> Miguel> option. (See section A.6.8.)
>
> I beg to differ. Quorum means the same thing in Debian as it
> does elsewhere (a dictionary definition is appended). There are,
> however, additional constraints on how a winner is determined that
> are also dependent on the numerical value of the quorum.
I see nothing in the Debian Constitution referring to a quorum as the
"number of the ... members of [Debian] as is competent ... to transact
business ..." Rather than being the number of members who must
participate in the decision in order to transact business, it is the
number who must prefer the winning option to the default option. A
fine definition, and clearly aimed at the same idea, but not quite the
same as the standard definition you cite. [For another standard
example of a use of the word similar to the dictionary definition, see
Robert's Rules of Order, cited below.]
Elsewhere, Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr> writes:
> The way I read it, A.6.8 doesn't redefine 4.2's "quorum", it just
> sets another rule about the winning procedure.
Section 4.2 only gives a numerical value for the quorum; it doesn't
state what the effect of that value is or what the meaning of the word
"quorum" is. The only place where the effect of a quorum (and thus
the meaning of the word in the context of the Debian Constitution) is
mentioned is in A.6.8, so that must be taken as the definition of
"quorum", as far as I can tell. There is nothing in the Debian
Constitution that says that the quorum is the number of members who
must participate in order to transact business.
On the contrary, a quorum for Debian is the minimum number of votes
that must prefer the winning option to the default option. Which is
_not_ the same thing as saying that a quorum is the number of members
who must participate in the decision-making in order to transact
business, which would be the usual definition. That's why the factor
of two (more or less) that I mentioned in my original email is
introduced.
There are two different ways that the default option (in this case
"None Of The Above") can be chosen: (1) If the default option wins the
vote or (2) even if it does not win the vote, if there are not enough
votes (i.e., a quorum) that prefer the winning option to the default
option. The latter is the only thing I can see that quorum means in
the Debian context.
> I think we can say that the quorum has been met, however, we
> do not yet know if there is a winner yet (which is as it should be).
Right. But only because the number of votes well exceeds twice the
numerical value of the quorum, not merely that it exceeds 100% of the
quorum.
--Miguel
> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44 [gcide]:
>
> Quorum \Quo"rum\ (kw[=o]"r[u^]m), n. [L., of whom, gen. pl. of
> qui who, akin to E. who. See the Note below.]
> Such a number of the officers or members of any body as is
> competent by law or constitution to transact business; as, a
> quorum of the House of Representatives; a constitutional
> quorum was not present.
> [1913 Webster]
>
> Note: The term arose from the Latin words, Quorum aliquem
> vestrum . . . unum esse volumus (of whom we wish some
> one of you to be one), which were used in the
> commission formerly issued to justices of the peace in
> England, by which commission it was directed that no
> business of certain kinds should be done without the
> presence of one or more of certain justices specially
> designated. Justice of the peace and of the quorum
> designates a class of justices of the peace in some of
> the United States.
> [1913 Webster]
>
Similarly, Robert's Rules (see:
http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-11.htm#64) uses the term quorum
to mean:
"A Quorum of an assembly is such a number as must be present in
order that business can be legally transacted. The quorum refers to
the number present, not to the number voting. The quorum of a mass
meeting is the number present at the time, as they constitute the
membership at that time. The quorum of a body of delegates, unless the
by-laws provide for a smaller quorum, is a majority of the number
enrolled as attending the convention, not those appointed. The quorum
of any other deliberative assembly with an enrolled membership (unless
the by-laws provide for a smaller quorum) is a majority of all the
members."
And it goes on to point out, "This gives the right to act for the
society to about one-fourth of its members in ordinary cases ..."
(where a motion can pass by a majority vote of a quorum consisting of
50% of the members).
The Debian definition is akin to saying that under Robert's Rules, 25%
of the total membership is a Debian-style quorum, and a Debian-style
quorum (and a majority of those present at a meeting), must
affirmatively vote for a resolution in order for it to pass. But
that's _not_ what Robert's Rules actually says: If 90% of those
attending a meeting vote for a resolution, but the meeting is only
attended by 40% of the membership, the motion should not be enacted
according to Robert's Rules because there was not a (Robert's
Rules-style) quorum present at the meeting.
In Debian, there is no distinction between the number "present" and
the number voting since there is no physical presence distinct from
the vote.
(I give this as another standard example of how the word quorum is
commonly used, not to say that Robert's Rules is somehow the right way
to do things.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: