Joerg Jaspert writes ("Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions"):
> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > Therefore the clause "If more than half of the NMC (excluding DAM) abstain
> > or do not vote, the decision is not overturned" would IMHO need to be
> > removed completely from the rules.
...
> So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the
> vote goes, I don't think just deleting that one sentence is it. But
> I'm not an expert in voting systems, so am happy for any
> input. Could go with a quorum (and then count abstains for it) and
> requiring a (3 quarter?) majority of voters?! Could go with
> something else? Somebody come up with a nice thing, please. :)I'll bit. Having some kind of quorum requirement is a good idea. Yours is not ideal because it is non-monotonic. Specifically, the sometimes best way to defeat something would be to simply not vote, so that the 50% quorum is not reached. I suggest instead that you say that the decision is not overturned unless supported by (i) at least sqrt() of the eligible voters (ii) strictly more than 50% of the people voting. sqrt is a good function here because it adjust the quorum proportion according to the voting pool. If for some reason only a small number of people are available/eligible, the quorum is most of them. Currently you say there are 17 so a revocation decision would have to be supported by at least ~4.123 people, ie (since supporters only come in whole numbers) at least 5. That is close to the implied 25% of your proposal. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
