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

Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction

>>>>> "Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:

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

    Nathanael> Quorum is about number of people showing up for
    Nathanael> *discussion*, not *approving*.

I think I'm willing to agree with you here that quorum is not a great
name for what we have in Manoj's proposal.

And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized
what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a
proposal.  I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother.

But whatever it's called, the discussion has convinced me at least
that it seems to be a good idea, especially including how it interacts
with the default option.  There may be a better idea, but you have not
yet presented one.

And personally I don't think disagreement over whether quorum is a
reasonable name for what Manoj's proposing is a good reason to prefer
the default option to his proposal.

Reply to: