>>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Michał Górny wrote:

> For the record: we currently count 3 QA members in the Council.
> Given their abstention, that means that for any motion to pass, all
> remaining Council members would have to vote 'yes'. If we had one
> more QA member, all motions would automatically be rejected by
> abstention.

Huh, but we don't vote like that. For example, in the 2013-09-17
meeting we had a motion that was accepted with 3 yes votes, 2 no
votes, and 1 abstention (of 6 council members present).

> However, I would personally lean towards changing the voting model
> to be less silly and make abstention really distinct from 'no'.

The voting model is that more than half of the votes are needed for
a majority. Abstentions do not count as votes (so effectively this
means that the number of yeas must exceed the number of nays).

A motion does not pass if there is a tie. (Example in the same
2013-09-17 meeting, a motion with 3 yes votes and 3 no votes was
rejected.)

This seems to agree with the procedure used elsewhere, see for example
Robert's Rules of Order: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#6

Ulrich