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