On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
No decided issues have less than 100 votes.
So, suggest go ahead with it: Drop all ocurances of "Q" and quorum
from
the Consitution.
"Votes have always met quorum" is not the same thing as "quorum is
useless".
Agreed. It isn't. But when taken together with the margin we beat the
quorum with each time (we didn't even come close to failing quorum when
we accidentally doubled the quorum requirement), and the other reasons
aj(?) mentioned, it is strong evidence that in the past, the quorum has
been of no use. When taken in consideration along with the growing size
of the electorate (now close to 1000 developers), it provides good
reason to believe the same will hold in the future.
Thrice half the square root (i.e., the quorum formula) of the
population of the US (~270mil) is under 25,000. For the entire world,
it is under 117,000.
For all we know, one of the reasons we've always had enough votes to
meet quorum is because we've always had quorum for each vote.
I believe the above covers this. In addition, I can't think of any
evidence to support that hypothesis, or logical reason to suspect it
true.
And if [as you imply] we would never fail to meet quorum, it's fairly
harmless to leave quorum in the constitution.
Assuming, of course, that there are no harmful side-effects from adding
the quorum requirement to the voting method. Also, the same argument
would hold for the opposite; there is no harm in removing it either. If
there is no harm either way, I'd suggest the simpler method, which is
the one without the quorum.
