Raul Miller wrote: > >That would be bad. > > > >If you do it this way, there are circumstances where a vote against > >an option may cause that option to win (because without that vote the > >option wouldn't have met quorum).
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 02:21:05PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > I think you are misunderstanding the suggestion. > > The way quorum usually works in face-to-face meeting is that the > deliberative body cannot come to a decision without a quorum. If a vote > is held and then it is discovered that there was not quorum at the time > of the vote, then the vote is discarded. No option wins, no option is > defeated. True. > In the case that John Robinson mentioned, if the quorum is 72, and 70 > people vote, there is no quorum, so all 70 ballots are discarded and the > vote is null and void. True. > I read his suggestion as extending that to Debian voting procedure. He > would have quorum measured not on an option-by-option basis, but on a > total-ballot basis. Too few valid ballots received nullifies the vote. > If enough valid ballots are received by the deadline, then the vote is > binding, regardles of the number of people who voted for (or against) > any particular option. That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying is bad. I don't think you understood my objection. Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes against the option. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
