On Sun 05 Dec 2010 19:55 +0100, Xyne wrote: > On 2010-12-05 12:20 -0500 (48:7) > Loui Chang wrote: > > > On Sun 05 Dec 2010 11:53 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Shacristo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kaiting Chen <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > One of the stated purposes of the quorum is to "ensure that TUs remain > > > > active in the job that they have taken on." Allowing circumvention of > > > > the quorum requirements will obviously undermine that. > > > > > > TU's have a lot of different responsibilities. Prolonging a decided vote > > > by > > > six days to motivate or ensure that someone is active does not make sense > > > to > > > me. --Kaiting. > > > > I would propose shortening the voting period then. I kind of like how > > the system is set up (not perfectly though) to remove the inactive TUs > > semi-automatically. > > I've copied my reply to another thread below for reference so you > don't have to search for it (I tend to reply to messages as I read > them instead of scanning everything first). > > After thinking about this more, I propose the following: > > The voting period should remain 7 days regardless of the current votes. It is > rude to others to exclude them from participation even if the outcome is > assured. > > Once the voting period is over, the motion shall pass if either an absolute > majority were reached, or if a simple majority were reached with quorum. > > This will allow all TUs to have their say if they so choose and it sidesteps > the issue of determining inactivity due to shortened voting periods while > preventing motions with absolute (i.e. insurmountable) majorities from > failing, which is what the real issue is here. Overall I think this is the > simplest solution.
I like this solution.
