> On 23 Jul 2015, at 10:59, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 23 July 2015 at 10:23, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 Jul 2015, at 08:58, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dave abstains, Fippo, Kev, Lance, Matt to vote on list. > > > > > > > For the record, I didn't abstain. > > He who writes the minutes… > > But less flippantly, I think this was an abstention. XEP-0001 uses the word > ‘neutral’ to describe a vote of 0, (with +1 being approve and -1 being > disapprove, with reasons), and formally stating that you are not voting for > or against is, at least by the only dictionary I have to hand, the definition > of abstention - meaning a neutral vote is an abstention. > > > Neutral is probably the better term, but not abstention. > > An abstention would not count in terms of finding at least a simple majority, > and would also be illegal by XEP-0001, too, which says we must vote.
I think we’re arguing about whether the dictionary is right or not. XEP 1 uses the term ‘neutral’ to refer to a formal position of not voting for or against. My dictionary uses the term ‘abstention’ to refer to a formal position of not voting for or against. I could have said ‘0’ or ‘neutral’, to mean the same thing. I think majorities are independent of this, in any case. XEP1 demands a majority of Council, not of Council-who-have-voted, so 0/neutral/abstention is functionally equivalent to failing to vote, as it has no effect on the count of favourable votes needed for a majority, the number of favourable votes cast, or the presence of any vetos (veto is actually not the right term here, because what xep1 requires is different, but it’s good enough for jazz). /K
