cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Berin Loritsch <blorit...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC
Date Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:07:23 GMT
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Friday 31 January 2003 14:07, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> 
>>Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>
>>>People, use some logic here...
>>>
>>>The fact that a 50% quorum is required, and the vote will automatically
>>>fail if a qurom is not reached, it is better for the "opposition" not to
>>>vote at all, than vote -1. There are almost always someone
>>>"lazy"/"vacation"/"sick" that is unable to vote, which then is a indirect
>>>vote against, if the "opposition" refrains from voting.
>>>
>>>Clear?
>>
>>In Avalon, where the voting procedures came from, there was a larger
>>problem than apathy.  Those issues have to a large part been resolved,
>>and I will not dig them up here.
>>
>>Suffice it to say:
>>
>>The Cocoon PMC members who have volunteered for the job, are responsible
>>to respond to PMC votes.  It is also *very* important to have a concept
>>where we are not sneaky.  We say what we mean, and we mean what we say.
> 
> 
> Ok, just showing a bug in the design... ;o)
> I also hope that there won't be a problem, but let me give an absurd example;
> 
> In the late 60's a new one-chamber parliment constitution was designed in 
> Sweden, consisting of "majority votes" and 350 delegates. It went into 
> practice in 1970 election, and in 1973 election the "design flaw" surfaced. 
> Two blocks of parties with 175 votes each, and for 3 years all major issues 
> were decided by "lucky draw".
> I'm not sure, but I think they even broke the constitution when they changed 
> the number of delegates to 349 to the next election (changes to the 
> constitution must be ratified by 3 elected parliments (2 elections) or 
> something like that), to avoid this circus in the future.

Well, let me finish the thought I started last night and was too tired.

A lack of voting, or a lack of taking any stand whatsoever is "concent
by default".  Basically if enough +1's go through, then the vote passes
whether you really wanted it to or not.  Abstaining, or voting 0 in the
hopes of having a vote to not reach quorum is a gamble.  If you don't
want something to pass just have the guts to say -1.  That's all.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message