Re: [PMC] bootstrapping the PMC

[Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>]

On Friday 31 January 2003 21:07, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> A lack of voting, or a lack of taking any stand whatsoever is "concent
> by default".  Basically if enough +1's go through, then the vote passes
> whether you really wanted it to or not.  Abstaining, or voting 0 in the
> hopes of having a vote to not reach quorum is a gamble.  If you don't
> want something to pass just have the guts to say -1.  That's all.

Well, what I am trying to say is, that if the quorom limit equals the limit 
for +1 votes, there is a design flaw in the system. (Not discussing morals, 
should do or not, will do, can not and so on.) The higher you place the 
quorom, the more you favour the "-1" side. If the quorom is 100%, you see the 
obvious, if it is 0% you only need a single vote. If you truly believe in an 
active PMC, put the quorom at 0% and allow 2 weeks for voting. No PMC member 
should be away for more than 2 weeks, right...

I would suggest that the qurom is lowered a bit, perhaps 30%, making the use 
of the -1 vote explicit, i.e. you can not practically "vote down" by not 
voting at all. 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org