| 1 |
Dnia 14 lutego 2018 08:22:31 CET, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> For the record: we currently count 3 QA members in the Council. |
| 5 |
>> Given their abstention, that means that for any motion to pass, all |
| 6 |
>> remaining Council members would have to vote 'yes'. If we had one |
| 7 |
>> more QA member, all motions would automatically be rejected by |
| 8 |
>> abstention. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>Huh, but we don't vote like that. For example, in the 2013-09-17 |
| 11 |
>meeting we had a motion that was accepted with 3 yes votes, 2 no |
| 12 |
>votes, and 1 abstention (of 6 council members present). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> However, I would personally lean towards changing the voting model |
| 15 |
>> to be less silly and make abstention really distinct from 'no'. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>The voting model is that more than half of the votes are needed for |
| 18 |
>a majority. Abstentions do not count as votes (so effectively this |
| 19 |
>means that the number of yeas must exceed the number of nays). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>A motion does not pass if there is a tie. (Example in the same |
| 22 |
>2013-09-17 meeting, a motion with 3 yes votes and 3 no votes was |
| 23 |
>rejected.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Oh, I'm sorry, I must have confused it with something else. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>This seems to agree with the procedure used elsewhere, see for example |
| 29 |
>Robert's Rules of Order: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#6 |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
>Ulrich |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |
Archives