Re: Bylaws Revision: VOTING[4]

From: "Darren O(dot) Benham" <gecko(at)benham(dot)net>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bylaws Revision: VOTING[4]
Date: 1999-05-29 04:50:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 07:10:45PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> Well, if votes are only demanded from the membership as a whole on
> important issues on a relatively infrequent basis, I don't think it would
> be too much to ask for members to not be apathetic. If voting were
> frequent and on relatively minor matters I would say quorum should be low
> because everyone has lives and deadlines and all kinds of things to make
> room for on their calendar.
> I would not be adverse to making voting at least somewhat mandatory on
> important issues, perhaps if a member fails to vote on (say) 80% of the
> important votes they are downgraded... Sounds harsh, though. But
> apathetic democracies are problematic, since issues usually then get
> decided by the extremes, rather than any true majority. But that way,
> problems with meeting quorums would be somewhat self-correcting.
Hmm... I wonder what others have to say. Considering the opposition to
expiring memberships... hmmmm

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> <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> <gecko(at)fortunet(dot)com> <webmaster(at)spi-inc(dot)org> *


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christoph Lameter 1999-06-01 17:53:22 Re: Bylaws Revision: VOTING[4]
Previous Message Lynn Winebarger 1999-05-29 00:10:45 Re: Bylaws Revision: VOTING[4]