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

Re: Another proposal.


Buddha Buck:
> 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).
> 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.
Exactly. I was assuming that the requirement for a quorum, like the one
for a supermajority, is an externally imposed one, e.g. if the
constitution says that there's a 2:1 super requirement for any change and
only option A changes it, then I need to apply the 2:1 rule to option A,
and option A _only_.

Same with quorums. And in that context I think a "total number of
participants" rule is dangerous -- see my earlier mail.

However, if the quorum should apply to the vote in total (i.e., "how
many people show up") in a traditional sense, so that the vote effectively
didn't happen if they don't, then I'm perfectly happy with the way you and
John want to apply it.

> That is in line with how I would normally interpret a quorum.

Tell that to the politicians around here.  :-/

Matthias Urlichs     |     noris network AG     |     http://smurf.noris.de/

Attachment: pgp0l6nRkRksw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: