What does it mean if not all members vote?

altruism Public Seen by 51

Sean Tilley Thu 13 Sep 2012 12:05AM

I think as long as the majority vote comes through, and it's not a horribly disproportionate number (for example, a closing proposal consisting of only 2 or 3 votes is just no good, and ought to be considered a dud), then it should probably pass. People are going to miss votes sometimes, and not everyone wants to vote on every proposal.

The thing to keep in mind: does a proposal truly have a majority of the users that are on here? At the very least, are the no votes outweighed by the yes ones?

Brent Bartlett Thu 13 Sep 2012 12:06AM

I don't think that all members should have to vote. Should a vote be held up, just because one person went on vacation, and forgot to check their email?

There should be some sort of quorum requirement, though, such as 2/3 attendance (i.e. a proposal passes or fails once the time runs out, and 66% or more members have voted).

Sean Tilley Thu 13 Sep 2012 12:11AM

If we're going to go with a minimum number of attendees voting, should we also consider a minimum length of time for proposals, to give as many people as possible the chance to vote?

Brent Bartlett Thu 13 Sep 2012 12:17AM

I say "yes".

tortoise Thu 13 Sep 2012 12:19AM

Well it's interesting. I think I revert to being a broken record: I think that we should invite more people here. I strongly feel that there is an under-representation of non-teckies here. And I'm not saying that because I think you all will vote against me whatever I may vote for or against! :)

Perhaps we might decide that Loom.io (the Loom), is working? that we like it and that we want to use it to build consensus in the community? If we are decided then I think we should start making it more public for people to come and join if they want to come here. That means just plain old users on the stream.

Is that a horrible suggestion?

I would certainly feel better with more voices here, and more plurality, as well.

I also think defining a quorum is a great idea!

It's true not everyone is going to want to vote on every issue. (but that is also what the abstain vote is for. Someone is weighing in that they will go with the current in whatever the vote ends up being up or down).