| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> For the record: we currently count 3 QA members in the Council. Given |
| 3 |
> their abstention, that means that for any motion to pass, all remaining |
| 4 |
> Council members would have to vote 'yes'. If we had one more QA member, |
| 5 |
> all motions would automatically be rejected by abstention. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> However, I would personally lean towards changing the voting model to be |
| 8 |
> less silly and make abstention really distinct from 'no'. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
If the consequences of waiting are so onerous as to require an |
| 12 |
immediate decision on the matter, people are going to choose action |
| 13 |
anyway, regardless of any rules. If an issue does not require |
| 14 |
immediate attention, any action may as well wait until everyone has |
| 15 |
read and understood the matter. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In the US, there are circumstances where the sergeant at arms of the |
| 18 |
Senate can use all executive forces available to make senators show |
| 19 |
up. That this is possible should show something important: abstention |
| 20 |
means neither yes nor no. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Cheers, |
| 23 |
R0b0t1 |
Archives