André Schnabel wrote: > I will revert the changes - and write mor on the topic later.
OK, my mistake apparently. Though I may ask wtf it is doing in a wiki then, without even ACLs, and why post the URL, if it is not there to be changed? > No in recent years we had the clear rule, that all council decisions > need to be by consensus - no opposing or absent votes allowed. This > lead to the situation, that council votes had to be delayed for > months - maybe because one member was not able to attend the voting > sessions, not willing to cast a vote or just not interested in the > topic. Described that way, the problem is not in the voting, but instead in who is allowed to vote. That appears to be a similar problem as is found in a number of ISO committees nowadays since MSFT paid a lot of sockpuppets to register to participate for a single issue and all subsequent topics have slammed to a halt due to lack of participation. How about requiring that participants register a proxy if they will be absent and that a number of absences within a specific time (short or long) mean end of term. Look, rushing this, too, will make a mess. The rules of voting will more or less determine what behavior is brought forth. Please look at these rules of order as a form writing scripts or programming. The intent matters very little. If there is a fatal flaw in the script, malfeasants *will* find and exploit it. Allowing abstentions to equal "yes" allows for crap to be flown in under the radar or during holidays. So does a "rush" vote. In practice these get used to avoid scrutiny and evaluation for harmful or at best unpopular decisions. -Lars --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
