On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:59 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote: > 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.
This is the key point missing from the by-laws draft. It uses "objection" to refer to both kinds of "nays", when it really needs to distinguish them with different terms and explain how they are different. It would also be useful to separate the kinds of votes into subsections. - Consensus votes: Lazy, Three-vote, and Unanimous; objections are vetos; vary in the number of "yes" votes required (1/3/all). - Majority votes: Simple, Two-thirds; objections are simple "nos"; vary in the yes-no ratio required (1-1/2-1). —Dan
