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.
