Eric Kow wrote: > Hi Karen, > > The wording below seems mostly OK. > > There were some questions about rounding and tie votes, but I think we > can address those by making explicit that we shall err on the side of > conservatism (for example, abstentions could be counted as a vote for > the status quo, and any ties will be resolved in favour of the status > quo). > > Thanks! >
Well, let's figure out some wording that works in the way you want it to. I think someone already suggested, but we could require certain votes to be approved by a certain percentage of the qualified voters (as opposed to the percentage of voters that cast their vote). Would that do the trick? If not, it might actually be faster to have a quick chat on the phone to nail this provision down. Karen _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
