On Friday 06 June 2014 10:20:02 Harald Sitter 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
I think the reason the other councils have 7 people is mostly for attendance reasons so I'm not sure whether we really need it. We could stay close to the dev ruling and say: A vote needs to have at least +3 with at least 4 people having voted, be it in meeting or ML. That would make the passing conditions: +6 +5 = +5 [+0] +4 = +5 -1 [+0], +4 [+2x0] +3 = +4 -1 [+0], +3 +0 [+2x0] This would also make ties impossible as at most one person may be against it. (which would mean that +3 -2 also doesn't pass, it also pretty much reduces the voting to a 5 people council with the 6th person being a voting speed up) Too complicated or do the others think that we can usually agree on something to pass it? Philip -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
