#22079: Community governance documents -----------------------+------------------------ Reporter: alison | Owner: alison Type: project | Status: new Priority: Medium | Milestone: Component: Community | Version: Severity: Normal | Resolution: Keywords: | Actual Points: Parent ID: | Points: Reviewer: | Sponsor: -----------------------+------------------------
Comment (by arma): Replying to [comment:20 catalyst]: > Replying to [comment:19 atagar]: > > Hi Roger. Sorry, not sure I follow. I read that as saying that enacting new policies needs a 2/3 super majority. As you cited those had options to reject the policy and keep the status quo. > I interpret it as enacting a policy effectively requires a 2/3 supermajority if there is only one proposal (no alternatives) and no abstentions. (Abstentions seem to have the interesting effect of diluting reject/no-action votes.) > > For the CoC/SoV votes, I would say the "take no action" alternative was the "b. I do not approve of the proposal." option. Similarly, for the membership policy vote, I think the "take no action" option would have been "B. I reject the attached proposal." Yep, I agree with all of this. I think we should be aware of, and maybe help voters be aware of too, the fact that the "no" option in these votes only needs 1/3 of the votes to be the winner. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/22079#comment:23> Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/> The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________ tor-bugs mailing list tor-bugs@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs