On Wed, 21 May 2003 11:28:37 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:09:43AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Content-Description: signed data >> Hi, >> >> Sven Luther wrote: >> > But you cannot know what the situation is, unless you have >> > insider knowledge >> >> A situation where a vote would be successful, but fail for lack of >> participation, often requires no insider knowledge at all to be >> recognizeable as such. In that situation, the opponents can make a >> vote fail simply by not voting. > If there is sucha lack of participation that even our low quorum > requirement is not meet, then is this a bad thing ? Is Quorum low for all votes we have? How about tech ctte votes? (sqrt of 9 == 3; half = 1.5; times 3 = 4.5; so we need 5 out of 9 people (when we do get 9 people)). For 7 people, we need a quorum of 4. In the general body votes, for debian, sure, it is not a bad thing. Can you point out any case in which the amendment invalidates a vote where the initial GR does not? There is no such case I could come up with. Indeed, the amendment would validate general body votes where no option got the support of event the low quorum number of voters -- which is a bad thing. I think it should be made clear that the original GR rejects votes in more cases of low participation than the amendment does. manoj -- "If you get somebody to give you a dollar, they'll vote for you for the rest of their lives." Hugh Parmer, Democratic candidate for the 1990 U.S. Senate, from Texas Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C