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

Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction

Raul Miller wrote:
>On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 09:48:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Seriously, Manoj's system *isn't* a quorum system.  
>It's a per-option quorum.  That's different from "not being a quorum."

No, it's not a quorum system.  Quorum is always opinion-neutral, under 
every defintion.  People showing up to oppose something always count
toward quorum.  That's why Manoj's system is not a quorum system; it 
only counts people coming to vote *for* something, not people coming to 
vote that it's unacceptable.  This is why I said that nobody here really 
seems to want a quorum system.

Quorum is about number of people showing up for *discussion*, not 

>> * The proper scheme for making sure that an appropriate number of 
>> approve of something is called "getting seconds" (and you've already 
>> got that).
>That's it.
What's what?  Are you saying that this is your preferred justification 
for Manoj's "quorum" system?

>Now, if you can: define "appropriate", and explain why quorum is not
I don't know exactly what you're talking about here.  

I can't define "appropriate number of people", that's up to you all.

I will assume you meant: define "proper" and explain why quorum is not 
"proper" for this purpose.  It is improper to use something called "quorum"
for a purpose which does not satisfy (any of) the dictionary definitions 
of quorum, or the spirit behind them.  It is particularly improper when 
there is already an appropriate phrase to use for this purpose. 

If it is accepted by Debian in general that "quorum" is to be used to me 
"getting more seconds", then Manoj's system is fine, of course.  But the 
fact that there's already a system for getting seconds in the 
Constitution indicates that perhaps Debian does not need a second method 
of getting seconds.

>> * The proper scheme for deferring to the default option unless 
>there's a 
>> strong enough preference is margin-of-victory-over-default.
>Nope, that's the quorum alternative you proposed earlier today.

What do you mean by "nope"?  I said that the "quorum alternative" I 
proposed was in fact a margin-of-victory system.

>> I will now try to justify Manoj's "quorum" system.
>> "No proposal can be implemented by fewer than R people, where R is 
>> quorum.  Therefore there's no point in approving any proposal with 
>> than R people actively approving of it."
>Nope.  That's John H. Robinson, IV's quorum.

You must be very confused.  John's quorum only requires that R people 
"show up" to vote, not that they approve of anything in particular.  
It's an actual quorum.

I described a possible justification for Manoj's "quorum" there.

Manoj's "quorum" is really a requirement for additional seconds.
If that's what people want, fine; you should just know what you're


Reply to: