ie a non acting active person just inflates quorum
On 2009-06-04, Elliott Hird <penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I mean, the only non-possibility thing. > > On 2009-06-04, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Elliott Hird >> <penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Activity is just for quorum. >>> On 2009-06-04, Kyle Marek-Spartz <zeckal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>> Maybe we should instead make quorum depend on the number of people who >>>>> actually voted last time round (like B used to), rather than messing >>>>> with inactivation? >>>> >>>> One can be active without voting. >>>> >>>> Kyle Marek-Spartz - KDØGTK >>>> >>> >> >> No. One must be active for any number of things. Voting is just the >> most prominent. >> >
