Re: [part 2] Article 3: Membership

On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 02:45:26PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > I'm thinking of voting and such...
>
> Ah! Now I understand ;-)
>
> Well, I thought that voting was TBD, and was, for the sake of argument,
> being left 'til later. (I'm not sure that I completely agree with this,
> but it has made the discussion easier so far)
It is.. but it's hard to forget about things like that, totally. I resort
to not talking about what *should* the quorum be and such.

> > Lets say we have 1000 people on the roles but, because of people
> > disappearing we have only 100 active people... or 100 active people who
> > will vote on any given issue, anyway. Given Debian's voting rules, any
> > single choice would have to get 48 MORE votes than any other choice...
> >
> This assumes that SPI will "naturally" adopt Debian's voting rules.
Not really. It was just a real world example. If there was a, say, 25%
quorum, that means 250 more votes. If there was a 10%, that's 100 votes.
Any "realistic" quorum could be a problem. Infact, any measurements taken
on "number of members" could be a problem. This would be in issue to even
vote in the board if that was the only vote members were allowed to make
(like it is in many stockholders meetings).

[snipped alot of good stuff *because* it's not a vote discussion yet]

> One last off-topic-comment: Before each vote, "active" members would be
> asked to register for the vote. The number of registered voters would then
> determine what "majority" or "super majority" would mean in this
> particular vote.
That would eliminate the need to remove inactive members from the roll..
but it would seem easier to send a ping message out, automaticly, every two
years and anyone who doesn't reply is moved out of the rolls (say, to the
non-contrib rolls or a third class could be inactive-contrib). Automated,
it could even be sent only if you don't have an email coming from you in
the archives for the last 12 months or something.

> Under normal voting conditions, you know when you have a yes vote, and you
> know when you have a no vote, but when you recieve no vote at all, you
> don't know whether it is from the voter being unwilling to vote one way or
> the other, or the voter is unable to render a vote at all. As those who
> are unable to render a vote, will also be unable to render a reply to the
> call for registration, the last group is more clearly identified as
> abstaining voters.
Or have ABSTAIN as one of the options that can be voted on...

> Just my POV,
If the potential members here would not mind "registering" to vote before
each vote, then the only object I'd have to not expiring is taken care of.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================