Harald Sitter <[email protected]> wrote:
>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 -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
