On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 02:45:26PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > I'm thinking of voting and such... > > Ah! Now I understand ;-) > > Well, I thought that voting was TBD, and was, for the sake of argument, > being left 'til later. (I'm not sure that I completely agree with this, > but it has made the discussion easier so far) It is.. but it's hard to forget about things like that, totally. I resort to not talking about what *should* the quorum be and such.
> > Lets say we have 1000 people on the roles but, because of people > > disappearing we have only 100 active people... or 100 active people who > > will vote on any given issue, anyway. Given Debian's voting rules, any > > single choice would have to get 48 MORE votes than any other choice... > > > This assumes that SPI will "naturally" adopt Debian's voting rules. Not really. It was just a real world example. If there was a, say, 25% quorum, that means 250 more votes. If there was a 10%, that's 100 votes. Any "realistic" quorum could be a problem. Infact, any measurements taken on "number of members" could be a problem. This would be in issue to even vote in the board if that was the only vote members were allowed to make (like it is in many stockholders meetings). [snipped alot of good stuff *because* it's not a vote discussion yet] > One last off-topic-comment: Before each vote, "active" members would be > asked to register for the vote. The number of registered voters would then > determine what "majority" or "super majority" would mean in this > particular vote. That would eliminate the need to remove inactive members from the roll.. but it would seem easier to send a ping message out, automaticly, every two years and anyone who doesn't reply is moved out of the rolls (say, to the non-contrib rolls or a third class could be inactive-contrib). Automated, it could even be sent only if you don't have an email coming from you in the archives for the last 12 months or something. > Under normal voting conditions, you know when you have a yes vote, and you > know when you have a no vote, but when you recieve no vote at all, you > don't know whether it is from the voter being unwilling to vote one way or > the other, or the voter is unable to render a vote at all. As those who > are unable to render a vote, will also be unable to render a reply to the > call for registration, the last group is more clearly identified as > abstaining voters. Or have ABSTAIN as one of the options that can be voted on... > Just my POV, If the potential members here would not mind "registering" to vote before each vote, then the only object I'd have to not expiring is taken care of. -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< * * -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------* * Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * =========================================================================
