From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B87E1382C5 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DD640E0AD1; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AED44E0AB2 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.111.85.141] (public-gprs392289.centertel.pl [37.47.163.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3EF5335C43; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:29:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:29:10 +0100 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <23171.58295.410584.278597@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <20180211224234.GB6747@linux1.home> <20180214002141.1d8a6da2@gentoo.org> <1518587586.3975.3.camel@gentoo.org> <23171.58295.410584.278597@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: council members and appeals To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org,Ulrich Mueller From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= Message-ID: <738C7D40-0B7F-4E18-8B44-BA34617DEB1E@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: f78a3ae9-13c0-4d79-ab0f-35755fc51bce X-Archives-Hash: 32f550bc7743f0931f2fea535f2425a6 Dnia 14 lutego 2018 08:22:31 CET, Ulrich Mueller napisa= =C5=82(a): >>>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > >> For the record: we currently count 3 QA members in the Council=2E >> Given their abstention, that means that for any motion to pass, all >> remaining Council members would have to vote 'yes'=2E If we had one >> more QA member, all motions would automatically be rejected by >> abstention=2E > >Huh, but we don't vote like that=2E 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)=2E > >> However, I would personally lean towards changing the voting model >> to be less silly and make abstention really distinct from 'no'=2E > >The voting model is that more than half of the votes are needed for >a majority=2E Abstentions do not count as votes (so effectively this >means that the number of yeas must exceed the number of nays)=2E > >A motion does not pass if there is a tie=2E (Example in the same >2013-09-17 meeting, a motion with 3 yes votes and 3 no votes was >rejected=2E) Oh, I'm sorry, I must have confused it with something else=2E > >This seems to agree with the procedure used elsewhere, see for example >Robert's Rules of Order: http://www=2Erobertsrules=2Ecom/faq=2Ehtml#6 > >Ulrich --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny (by phone)