[aur-general] Understanding the Trusted User Bylaws

[Peter Lewis]

On Sunday 05 December 2010 11:27:41 Thorsten Töpper wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:26:45 -0500 Shacristo <shacristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Right now 'no' and 'abstain' votes appear to be treated exactly the
> > same.  The abstain option should either be removed or it should be
> > made clear that it is only used for purposes of achieving a quorum.
> 
> No that is a bad idea. I myself abstained two votes simply because
> someone was not really convincing at that time but there also was no
> real thing to say that he would not do fine later. It helps to get the
> quorum as everyone who feels like that can do so, also it has no
> influence if the applicant becomes accepted or not as No still can
> reach more votes than Yes and vice versa.

Yeah, as Thorsten says, "abstain" and "no" are not the same thing, any more 
than "abstain" and "yes" are, since the logic applies both ways. "Abstain" 
basically means "I don't know/care about this one, and I'm happy to leave it 
to those who feel stronger than I". It's a kind of passive participation :-)

HTH,

Pete.