On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:37:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> * It introduces the concept of a quorum. A quorum should assert
> that there are no decisions without a sufficient number of
> electors. ...
> but in my opinion this description only fits for a more tradition
> global quorum requirement (i.e. when the whole election is cancelled
> if there are not enough electors). What reason should I give for the
> introduction of our per-option quorum?
It's the same reason, but a different mechanism, since we can't count
the number of people who are present but abstain as taking part in the
decision making. Not being able to do that introduces a minor quandry
for people who are against an option: do they not vote at all, in the
hope that they might defeat the election by failing to get quorum, but
risking a bad result from a close vote that does pass quorum, or do they
vote honestly and risk being the deciding vote in the success of an option
they're against? Doing it per-option and only counting "yes" votes (ie,
the ones that rank it above our "default" option) avoids that dilemma.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Attachment:
pgpQwB_wR3VFf.pgp
Description: PGP signature