Re: Ending votes early
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:52:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> After re-reading the draft (prompted by Branden on IRC), I
> think I don't know how to define "when the vote is no longer in
> doubt", since people can always revote.
Clearly the idea doesn't make sense if everybody changes their vote.
> At what point of time could the vote have been closed and had
> the same results as the actual vote?
I've always taken it to mean "ignoring the slight possibility that
people who have voted didn't mean what they said".
> I suggest we strike the clause about the secretary's ability
> to end votes early.
The thing I don't like about this is that it doesn't allow for quick
resolution making when everybody does, in fact, agree. Maybe not an
issue for general resolutions, but maybe significant for smaller groups
like the technical committee.
Since we should recognize that a small number of people might want to
change their votes, I'd recommend "when the vote would no longer be in
doubt if no more than quorum voters change their current ballots."
When most everyone agrees, do we really need to make everyone wait for
a decision because of the vanishingly small chance that everyone voted
what they didn't want?