Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement
> > (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which
> > changes the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more
> > severe for our current set of developers than that of any draft I've
> > proposed)?
>
> While it is true that I think quorum requirements are superfluous as
> well, I don't see perceive them carrying the same baggage as
> supermajority requirements, so I would not object to your above
> proposal.
i have no problem with any quorum requirement provided the following
points are met:
1) it is a reasonable number
* in a body as large as Debian, 90% quorum would be unreasonable.
* 25% i think is getting close to the upper end.
* 1.5*sqrt(num of electorate) seems low, but acceptable.
* for comparison, what was the voter turnout for the last few votes?
2) quorum applies to _entire_ ballots returned, not specific entries on
the ballots.
3) failure to meet quorum results in a thrown out vote
* as if the vote had never taken place
* as a reasonable option, though not preferred, the Default Option of
Further Discussion is declared the winner.
* but that leads to the point: how can a vote be binding, if quorum
was not met?
-john
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
