On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 07:03:52PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > For some reason, some people think that quorum should be assessed after > the vote and should be used to toss the vote if not enough votes were > received. That has bad properties which can discourage some voters when > participation is already low. Interestingly enough, most of the people > who have been "confused" by the concept of quorum have been advocating > this approach. > > In essence, the issues we're trying to address, with quorum, are different > from the "Everybody meets in the big hall and votes, and if not enough > people show up we can't vote" concept of classic quorum. If people are > confused by the fact that we're voting on a mailing list (rather than > in person), that's sad but it's not a reason to use an inferior mechanism.
What's wrong with "classic quorum" though? Why is your method superior? hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
