Quorum

[DGDanforth]

I believe it is necessary to change our definition of what constitutes a 'quorum' for the purpose of deciding votes.
Josef has suggested that an (absolute) majority is sufficient to decide a vote*. I agree and hereby open this discussion to considering adoption of a majority as the quorum value. For an odd number of voting members the majority is well defined. I would also suggest that the number of voting members always be restricted to an odd number.

*With many options in a vote it is possible that no option is preferred. For example A>B, B>C, C>A. As such, I also suggest that all of our votes be restricted to binary choices: A or B. 'No decision' is always an implicit choice. To handle that case we also need to stipulate a time duration for a vote (e.g. one day, one week, ...).

My inclination for deciding the quorum would be to use the 'majority rule' with the choice of A=majority, B=greater than majority.

This topic is now open for discussion.

[Ivan Denisov]

I think, that for some questions absolute majority is impossible. Imaging some specific question, when only 6 members have opinion. Then the voting results can be 4 members against 2 members. If over members abstained, absolute majority ins impossible and decision should be counted from this 4 persons. We had such situation with repository vote.

I think, that Josef meant exactly that he said:

If we have a majority of more than 50% with respect to a 100% quorum we don't need to wait for more votes.

Please note that I avoided the term 'absolute majority', because
(1) it may lead to misunderstandings and
(2) it is ambiguous unless the 100% quorum is also mentioned.

That means, that if we have 'absolute majority' we do not need the quorum. 'absolute majority rule' beats 'quorum rule', in the same time 'absolute majority' does not obligatory. I agree with that statement and think, that we should fix this in the rules after voting for that rule.

[DGDanforth]

I think, that for some questions absolute majority is impossible. Imaging some specific question, when only 6 members have opinion. Then the voting results can be 4 members against 2 members. If over members abstained, absolute majority ins impossible and decision should be counted from this 4 persons. We had such situation with repository vote.

Majority is always taken with respect to the number of center members with voting rights, which in the current case is 11 members. Hence 4 members for and 2 against would fail to pass.

I think, that Josef meant exactly that he said:

If we have a majority of more than 50% with respect to a 100% quorum we don't need to wait for more votes.

Please note that I avoided the term 'absolute majority', because
(1) it may lead to misunderstandings and
(2) it is ambiguous unless the 100% quorum is also mentioned.

That means, that if we have 'absolute majority' we do not need the quorum. 'absolute majority rule' beats 'quorum rule', in the same time 'absolute majority' does not obligatory. I agree with that statement and think, that we should fix this in the rules after voting for that rule.

I think we are all in accord. The term 'quorum' need not be used. Majority is always taken with respect to the number of center members with voting rights, whether or not they vote.

[Ivan Denisov]

Majority is always taken with respect to the number of center members with voting rights, which in the current case is 11 members. Hence 4 members for and 2 against would fail to pass.

I disagree. I am happy now, that we have no fixed rule about majority. If a lot of people abstained, that means, that they do not have opinion and delegate to other members the decision. Do you understand 'abstain' another way?

That will happen more often, when we will vote for technical decisions. Some people will not understand some problems, but they will trust others in that question.

"Absolute majority" rule, will stuck Center work forever. This works only about very simple questions.

[DGDanforth]

I disagree. I am happy now, that we have no fixed rule about majority. If a lot of people abstained, that means, that they do not have opinion and delegate to other members the decision. Do you understand 'abstain' another way?

That will happen more often, when we will vote for technical decisions. Some people will not understand some problems, but they will trust others in that question.

"Absolute majority" rule, will stuck Center work forever. This works only about very simple questions.

"Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler".
I believe all measures can be reduced to a binary choice.
Abstaining counts as a vote against the measure.
If a measure does not pass because of a 'low turnout' then it does not pass and the measure has not been sufficiently made clear to the center members.

What you seem to be saying is if a handful of the members are active (vote) and the others are passive (don't vote) then the active members decide the direction of the center. I disagree with that. It means we have bigger problems. Those members who are given voting privileges but don't use them need to seriously consider why they are part of the center in the first place.

There are, for me, quite a few areas in which I have no knowledge. But then it behooves me to learn the area under discussion or to initiate enough questions about the area until it becomes clear. Yes, that takes time. Democracy is notoriously slow.

Perhaps we should pare down the number of members with voting privileges? How many people developed BlackBox, 5?

-Doug

[cfbsoftware]

How many people developed BlackBox, 5?

Fourteen. From the BlackBox Help file > Contributors:

At Oberon microsystems, the following (current or former) employees have contributed to BlackBox:

- Beat Heeb
- Cuno Pfister
- Clemens Szyperski
- Thomas Amberg
- Daniel Diez
- Christian Di Giorgio
- Marc Frei
- Dominik Gruntz
- Matthias Hausner
- Stephan Koch
- Ivan Posva
- Bengt Rutisson
- Wolfgang Weck
- Jürg Wullschleger

[Ivan Denisov]

All Center members should have voice. I am not understanding this 'measure' concept... so I stoped understanding the discussion.

Binary choice is impossible, because there always should be the 'abstain' option.

[Ivan Denisov]

Doug, there is good engeneering rule. New product should include not more than 5% of innovation. You want now to change everything. That is simply boring to discuss all voting process stuff again and again. We can change quorum or add one or two rules. Please, we do not need voting revolutions. We need to vote.

[Josef Templ]

> Josef has suggested that an (absolute) majority is sufficient to decide a vote*.

I tried to avoid the term 'absolute majority'.
I used the more precise formula 'MORE than 50%'.
Now the question is 50% of what?
The obvious answer is of ALL THE POSSIBLE VOTES, i.e. of a quorum of 100%
or however you call it. It does not give sense to use THE EXISTING VOTES.

There is no complicated mathematics behind it and there is no need to limit
the number of center members to an odd number.

It was intended as a simplification in cases where it does not
give sense to wait for more votes because the result will not be changed.

- Josef

[DGDanforth]

All Center members should have voice. I am not understanding this 'measure' concept... so I stoped understanding the discussion.

Binary choice is impossible, because there always should be the 'abstain' option.

A measure is the thing you vote on.

Abstain is simply not voting which counts as an against vote (not for).