>>>>> "Nathanael" == Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nathanael> Raul Miller wrote: Nathanael> No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always Nathanael> opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing Nathanael> up to oppose something always count toward quorum. Nathanael> That's why Manoj's system is not a quorum system; it Nathanael> only counts people coming to vote *for* something, not Nathanael> people coming to vote that it's unacceptable. This is Nathanael> why I said that nobody here really seems to want a Nathanael> quorum system. Nathanael> Quorum is about number of people showing up for Nathanael> *discussion*, not *approving*. I think I'm willing to agree with you here that quorum is not a great name for what we have in Manoj's proposal. And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother. But whatever it's called, the discussion has convinced me at least that it seems to be a good idea, especially including how it interacts with the default option. There may be a better idea, but you have not yet presented one. And personally I don't think disagreement over whether quorum is a reasonable name for what Manoj's proposing is a good reason to prefer the default option to his proposal.