On Sun 05 Dec 2010 23:23 +0000, Peter Lewis wrote: > On Sunday 05 December 2010 23:14:14 Loui Chang wrote: > > On Sun 05 Dec 2010 22:52 +0000, Peter Lewis wrote: > > > I'd support some kind of reworking of the quorum for TU votes, since as > > > Kaitling points out, missing a meeting due to weather, car problems, etc. > > > doesn't really apply (though a reasonable equivalent might be that > > > someone's Internet connection goes down for a few days without warning.) > > > > > > It seems to me that if we are to basically expect that all TUs engage in > > > all votes, then the assumption is that a fully constituted vote is > > > everyone, not 66%. Therefore, a majority should be counted as a majority > > > of all TUs, not just of those voting. > > > > > > We'd have to ensure though, I think, that a TU that didn't vote on > > > more than n (consecutive?) occasions (possibly with the addition of > > > them not giving a reason for this) triggers a removal process > > > automatically. > > > > > > But, I'd be a little hesitant about having more complex quorum rules > > > (i.e. exactly as Chris suggested). We should probably either get rid of > > > it (in favour of the above higher expectation of participation) or else > > > leave it as it is. > > > > Well, we don't need to get rid of quorum. We can just raise the needed > > quorum for the different type of motions which may achieve a better > > balance. > > Yeah, that's fine, I don't feel strongly about how we implement > quorum, I just think it should be consistent and encourage everyone to > vote. > > Incidentally, what did you mean by "achieve a better balance"?
A better balance of non voters vs voters, which really isn't something that affects us as far as I can tell.