On Friday 31 January 2003 21:07, Berin Loritsch wrote: > A lack of voting, or a lack of taking any stand whatsoever is "concent > by default". Basically if enough +1's go through, then the vote passes > whether you really wanted it to or not. Abstaining, or voting 0 in the > hopes of having a vote to not reach quorum is a gamble. If you don't > want something to pass just have the guts to say -1. That's all.
Well, what I am trying to say is, that if the quorom limit equals the limit for +1 votes, there is a design flaw in the system. (Not discussing morals, should do or not, will do, can not and so on.) The higher you place the quorom, the more you favour the "-1" side. If the quorom is 100%, you see the obvious, if it is 0% you only need a single vote. If you truly believe in an active PMC, put the quorom at 0% and allow 2 weeks for voting. No PMC member should be away for more than 2 weeks, right... I would suggest that the qurom is lowered a bit, perhaps 30%, making the use of the -1 vote explicit, i.e. you can not practically "vote down" by not voting at all. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
