[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Another proposal.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:58:27PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> In the case you mentioned, sentiment is for the proposal, so the option 
> should win -- assuming the vote is binding.  If there are enough total 
> ballots to meet quorum, the vote is binding.  If there aren't enough 
> total ballots to meet quorum, the vote shouldn't be binding.
> Quorum is traditionally a way to determine if there is sufficient 
> participation in the deliberations to make any decision binding on the 
> organization making the decision.  If too few people actually return a 
> ballot, then too few people participated in the decision-making process 
> for the decision to be valid.
> You (and Matthias) seem to be assuming that if quorum isn't reached, 
> then the ballot measures should be shot down.  I and John are saying 
> that if quorum isn't reached, then the trigger hasn't been pulled yet 
> (to stretch a metaphor).
> But that is making a binding decision based on a lack of quorum.  That 
> goes against what quorum is usually used for.

This would be true if you consider the default option a binding decision.
But, if there's support for an issue, there's no reason that it couldn't
come to vote again.  All "further discussion" does is set the voting
procedure back to the start of the discussion period.

Personally, I don't see a significant distinction between "not coming
to a decision" and "the default option".

> You are also applying quorum requirements to individual options on the 
> ballot, rather than the vote as a whole.  I've rarely seen that use of a 
> quorum in the past.

Not really -- in the current draft the election results are discarded
if quorum is not met.

It's true that quorum is tested only in the context of a single option
[the winning option], but that doesn't allow any other options to win.

> Would you be satisfied if the too-small minority were unable to get 
> their way by not voting, but would only serve to delay the final 
> approval of the supermajority option, by forcing another vote?
> In otherwords, if X (the number of ballots) < Q (quorum), then the 
> results of the vote is non-binding.  It doesn't even need to be 
> computed, since it doesn't matter which option won.
> If X > Q, then the vote is binding, and we go with whatever option won 
> after applying supermajority and Condorcet/CpSSD procedures.
> That is in line with how I would normally interpret a quorum.

Normally, quorum applies to a meeting.  What sequence of events in
Debian's voting process do you hold as analogous to "a meeting"?



Reply to: