On Sun 05 Dec 2010 23:23 +0000, Peter Lewis wrote:
On Sunday 05 December 2010 23:14:14 Loui Chang wrote:
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 22:52 +0000, Peter Lewis wrote:
I'd support some kind of reworking of the quorum for TU votes, since as Kaitling points out, missing a meeting due to weather, car problems, etc. doesn't really apply (though a reasonable equivalent might be that someone's Internet connection goes down for a few days without warning.)
It seems to me that if we are to basically expect that all TUs engage in all votes, then the assumption is that a fully constituted vote is everyone, not 66%. Therefore, a majority should be counted as a majority of all TUs, not just of those voting.
We'd have to ensure though, I think, that a TU that didn't vote on more than n (consecutive?) occasions (possibly with the addition of them not giving a reason for this) triggers a removal process automatically.
But, I'd be a little hesitant about having more complex quorum rules (i.e. exactly as Chris suggested). We should probably either get rid of it (in favour of the above higher expectation of participation) or else leave it as it is.
Well, we don't need to get rid of quorum. We can just raise the needed quorum for the different type of motions which may achieve a better balance.
Yeah, that's fine, I don't feel strongly about how we implement quorum, I just think it should be consistent and encourage everyone to vote.
Incidentally, what did you mean by "achieve a better balance"?
A better balance of non voters vs voters, which really isn't something that affects us as far as I can tell.