On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 07:37:55PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > * It introduces the concept of a quorum. A quorum should assert > that there are no decisions without a sufficient number of > electors. ... > but in my opinion this description only fits for a more tradition > global quorum requirement (i.e. when the whole election is cancelled > if there are not enough electors). What reason should I give for the > introduction of our per-option quorum?
It's the same reason, but a different mechanism, since we can't count the number of people who are present but abstain as taking part in the decision making. Not being able to do that introduces a minor quandry for people who are against an option: do they not vote at all, in the hope that they might defeat the election by failing to get quorum, but risking a bad result from a close vote that does pass quorum, or do they vote honestly and risk being the deciding vote in the success of an option they're against? Doing it per-option and only counting "yes" votes (ie, the ones that rank it above our "default" option) avoids that dilemma. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
pgpoxj65snAZd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
