On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, June 05, 2014 16:35:30 Philip Muskovac wrote: > ... >> Now to the coucil: I'm not quite sure how to intepret [1]. >> Taking it literally, quorum is 3x +1 no matter what the other 3 people vote >> (if at all). Which would mean though that 3x +1 and 3x -1 are a passing >> vote of 0. Our old council voting rules [2] state that quorum is a majority >> vote with the chair having a casting vote, but we haven't had a chair for >> years (unless you consider jr to be the permanent chair) >> Another quorum definition would be to require +3, with nobody voting -1 >> (which is what I personally favor, but that might be rather impractical for >> decision making) Or we require a general majority vote of people present >> (i.e. 3 people have to vote for >= +3, for 6 people present it's >= +4, and >> for less than 3 people vote continues per mail unless at least +3 is >> reached) I believe that's closest to the last CC discussion about this [3] >> >> What may I understand as the correct interpretation here? > ... > > How does this compare to what's in the documentation for kubuntu-dev to > approave a new member? I remember agreeing with that and think it's likely > what we meant for the council as well, but maybe better written.
Dev is: simple majority of those present but at least 3 (so, quorum is reached with 3 devs in attendance given they all vote the same way). We use a present majority vote because dev has a variable member count. The simple majority requirement certainly does away with all the tie complexity as a motion simply isn't carried unless one side can form the majority, regardless of how many people are in attendance. i.e. dev ties default to -1. OTOH, since currently the council has 6 seats I'd say it deliberately enables ties in a session with all attending. That being said IMO you'd want to change the seat count to an odd number to accomodate the simple majority rule. Say you have 7 council members and 6 are in attendance resulting in +3/-3 the seventh council member would always be breaking the tie when taking to the mailing list. Alternatively with 5 council seats in general you don't even have a case where a quorum was given but majority prevented by a tie. With all that in mind I suggest that you change to a simple majority rule with at least 3 members necessary for quorum (not attendance majority, mind you). And next year for the elections either add a seat and raise the minimum to 4 or remove one and leave it at 3. That way you have an uneven seat count and motions cannot be blocked while technically having a quorum. HS -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
