BlackBox Framework Center

Josef, how do you plan to prevent STUPID falling ("falling" → "failing") of good voting because somebody did not find this poll or busy? Also, the poll duration is driving people to keep silence and sabotaging the votes if they do not like it instead of simply vote "no".

Ivan Denisov wrote:Josef, how do you plan to prevent STUPID falling of good voting because somebody did not find this poll or busy? Also, the poll duration is driving people to keep silence and sabotaging the votes if they do not like it instead of simply vote "no".

I am not sure if I understand the question.
What does "STUPID falling" mean?

If all members must vote, this is the same as setting the quorum to 100%.
The higher the quorum is the more polls will fail due to missing the quorum.
So how can a quorum < 100% be worse than a quorum of 100%?
I would leave the quorum at the agreed 80% and see how it works.
It can always be adjusted, but this should be a separate discussion not mixed with
the principal voting rules.

- Josef

Such example is just here:
http://forum.blackboxframework.org/view ... t=20#p1175

Josef Templ wrote:What does "STUPID falling" mean?

Sorry for my English, "falling" → "failing".

Voting Rules (amended)

(1) COMPLETE: A vote is complete when all members have voted (a).
(2) STABLE: A vote is stable as soon as the lead exceeds the missing (a)(e).
(3) RESULT: A vote has a result if there is one option with more votes than any other option (b)(c)(d).

(a) ends voting.
(b) determined after voting ends.
(c) option does not include ABSTAIN.
(d) the result of the vote is the leading option.
(e) the lead is the difference between the leading count and the next highest count.

A poll is
VALID := STABLE OR (COMPLETE & RESULT)
-----------

The main change in the voting rules is the clause as soon as in the definition of a STABLE vote. Without that clause and for polls allowing people to change their vote a STABLE vote could change to a NOT STABLE vote if a vote is changed. The clause makes the voting process have an 'absorbing barrier' which when first reached stops the vote.

There is something wrong about the voting rules. Today I looked at the DevCPT votes and the votes are closed before I make up my mind. Please add a % line about have not voted yet.

Ivan Denisov wrote: I am not understanding why Bernhard did not vote last two times

because I've been off also and I am not able to follow everything immediately.
--
Bernhard

Zinn wrote:There is something wrong about the voting rules. Today I looked at the DevCPT votes and the votes are closed before I make up my mind. Please add a % line about have not voted yet.

Helmut,
Even if you had voted your vote could not change the result. That is the purpose of the "Shortcut" rule.
It reduces the voting time without affecting a change in the voting result.

You could vote ABSTAIN and then change that vote later.

Yes, it might be nice to see how everyone voted but not everyone votes and hence to wait until they do could take an infinite amount of time (which we don't have).

I would like to vote even the result does not change.

There should be at least one day left for voting after the shortcut decided to stop voting.
A count down of the voting web site or an e-mail to remind the end of voting would be perfect.

Zinn wrote:I would like to vote even the result does not change.

There should be at least one day left for voting after the shortcut decided to stop voting.
A count down of the voting web site or an e-mail to remind the end of voting would be perfect.

OK, Ivan has said that when he has the time he will try and implement an automatic notifier that a stable vote has been obtained. We could add to that a one day waiting period for final votes as you suggest.

-Doug