2011/5/31 15:29 -0700, daniel.sm...@oracle.com:
> On May 31, 2011, at 2:34 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
>> A Two-Thirds Majority does allow for more voters to object but at the
>> same time it requires many more voters explicitly to approve, so in terms
>> of overall effort it's "harder".
>
> Sounds like you're describing an _absolute_ two-thirds majority. Where
> nobody objects, a standard two-thirds majority only requires 3
> approvals. That's not "many more" explicit approvals. And a
> _three-vote_ consensus is strictly more difficult than a (standard)
> two-thirds majority: both require three yeses, but the three-vote
> consensus allows no nos (for example, in a group of 100, a 3-1 or 4-2
> vote passes two-thirds majority but not three-vote consensus).
A "nay" in a lazy-consensus vote is more than a simple "no" -- it's
an actual veto, and to count as such it must be accompanied by a
justification which itself is subject to discussion and (potential)
resolution.
A "nay" in any type of majority vote is just a simple "no". It need
not, and usually will not, be accompanied by a justification.
Going back to your original observation:
> - Big picture: based on the structure, it looks like lazy consensus is
> supposed to be "easy," but it turns out to be quite "hard." It is
> easier to remove a group member (a tolerance of 1/3 of voters
> objecting) than to add one (zero tolerance for voters objecting).
> I'm not sure this is the intent.
Lazy consensus is "easier" than a majority vote because (a) it requires
less effort on the part of the group of eligible voters to approve, and
(b) saying "nay" in a lazy-consensus vote takes more effort and
commitment than saying "nay" in a majority vote.
To put this another way: Lazy consensus is appropriate for more-casual
decisions that allow but do not require the full attention of the set
of eligible voters. Majority votes are appropriate for higher-level,
more-important decisions, with the size of the majority varying directly
with the importance of the decision. In degenerate cases majority votes
can reduce to something that looks like lazy consensus, but that does not
make the two methods equivalent in their intended use.
> (Just noticed when working out specific numbers: simple majority uses
> '>' ("more of"), while two-thirds majority uses '>=' ("at least").
> That distinction may be significant among small groups; might be good
> to be more explicit about it.)
Good point -- I'll double-check those thresholds.
- Mark
