On Sun 05 Dec 2010 19:55 +0100, Xyne wrote:
On 2010-12-05 12:20 -0500 (48:7) Loui Chang wrote:
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 11:53 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Shacristo <shacristo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com> wrote: One of the stated purposes of the quorum is to "ensure that TUs remain active in the job that they have taken on." Allowing circumvention of the quorum requirements will obviously undermine that.
TU's have a lot of different responsibilities. Prolonging a decided vote by six days to motivate or ensure that someone is active does not make sense to me. --Kaiting.
I would propose shortening the voting period then. I kind of like how the system is set up (not perfectly though) to remove the inactive TUs semi-automatically.
I've copied my reply to another thread below for reference so you don't have to search for it (I tend to reply to messages as I read them instead of scanning everything first).
After thinking about this more, I propose the following:
The voting period should remain 7 days regardless of the current votes. It is rude to others to exclude them from participation even if the outcome is assured.
Once the voting period is over, the motion shall pass if either an absolute majority were reached, or if a simple majority were reached with quorum.
This will allow all TUs to have their say if they so choose and it sidesteps the issue of determining inactivity due to shortened voting periods while preventing motions with absolute (i.e. insurmountable) majorities from failing, which is what the real issue is here. Overall I think this is the simplest solution.
I like this solution.