Re: [part 2] Article 3: Membership

From: Darren Benham <gecko(at)benham(dot)net>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: [part 2] Article 3: Membership
Date: 1999-03-29 19:58:59
Message-ID: 19990329115858.A23072@gecko.fortunet
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

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.
* <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> *

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nils Lohner 1999-03-29 22:36:05 [DRAFT 2] Article 3: Membership
Previous Message Dale Scheetz 1999-03-29 19:45:26 Re: [part 2] Article 3: Membership