On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Lukas Fleischer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +0000, Xyne wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want to discuss our notions of "activity". According to the current bylaws, >> [...] > > This discussion starts to get messy. Now there are three different > threads discussing the same thing, basically. Could we please > concentrate on the current proposal and the related discussion before > initiating a new one? > > Also, you still didn't comment on the suggestion to remove the activity > part from the quorum computation altogether. Please read Sébastien's > reply (and follow-ups) to my proposal. The quorum is meant to ensure > that a result is representative. If 60% of all TUs are inactive, we can > currently establish a quorum of 100%. This does not seem right to me. > Also, dropping the activity restriction makes things a lot easier, so > this gets a +2 from me...
A simple majority of 51% isn't a consensus among the team, regardless of how many people voted. I don't think proposals should pass at all when nearly half of us object. Rather than the quorum, we could require a super-majority (60%, 70%) of the trusted users to vote YES and handle inactivity removals separately. If 8 people are on vacation, it's not a good time to be passing proposals.
