Re: Better quorum change proposal, with justifiction
> >On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 09:48:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >> Seriously, Manoj's system *isn't* a quorum system.
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >It's a per-option quorum. That's different from "not being a quorum."
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:33:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always opinion-neutral, under
> every defintion.
None of the definitions I've read include "opinion-neutral" as one of
the constraints. None of the definitions I've read mention opinions at
all -- though that, in a sense makes the definitions opinion neutral.
> People showing up to oppose something always count
> toward quorum.
People don't "show up" for our votes. The votes themselves are all that
> 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.
In that sense, nobody has proposed a quorum system -- nobody has
defined a mechanism for "showing up" which is anything other than
> Quorum is about number of people showing up for *discussion*, not
None of the definitions I've read talk about "discussion" or "voting".
> >> * 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?
I meant it's close enough to be worth discussing.
> >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.
Which is? "Getting more seconds"? "Approval"? What we're doing is
also slightly different than both of those, in much the same way what
we're doing is slightly different from the traditional use of quorum.
> 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.
"Seconds" are required to put something on the ballot, and is a fairly
minimal standard. This is something different, and is based on some
*significant* number of developers *agreeing that it's worth doing*.
> >> * 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 mean, no, this is not a justification for Manoj's 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 was refering to the first sentence of this justification, not the
second. The second sentence, is ambiguous (what's a "proposal?") enough
to either follow logically from the first part ("it" being the ballot
as a whole) or to omit some logical step and be a reference to the May
15 proposal ("it" being an option on the ballot). I'm sorry, I should
have been more clear about this thought process.