Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 18:32:57 GMT
We need to decide on what quorum will be for votes before the Governance Committee. Below I have copied some discussion from another thread.
I think the quorum should be relatively low, maybe half the committee plus one - so MrWookie's 12? That way there isn't too much pressure on people if they aren't around for a few days, they won't be inadvertently blocking a quorum.
We also need a process for removing people from the committee for inactivity to avoid having quorum blocked by a few people just disappearing and a few others not being around.
So this would allow us to fast track smaller items with a 12-0 (or more) vote, but larger items (and non fast-tracked smaller items) would require 48 hours and a consensus 12+-0 vote OR an additional 48 hours (so 96 total) and a 2/3 or 3/4 supermajority vote.
Two items that we should quickly decide, if we can, for internal use in this committee are what constitutes a quorum (Q), and the minimum time the polls are open (H). IMO these two issues are largely independent of exactly how we make decisions, and are equally necessary if we choose a consensus backed system, a super majority, 50%+1, or any other such system I can imagine.
Traditionally quorum is set to half the voting population. Which is fine, although I might suggest rounding down a little and setting it at Q=10 instead of Q=12.
Should we be discussing Q in terms of percentage of members rather than absolute numbers? Right now this committee has 22 people. Perhaps 5 stop posting here altogether over the next couple of months and another six lose interest in this committee. So now there are 11 members of this committee. If we've decided Q =12 we have a bit of a problem. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding and we've been talking percentages the whole time and the numbers 10 and 12 or just examples of what Q would be based on the current membership numbers
Should we be discussing Q in terms of percentage of members rather than absolute numbers?...One way to handle this would be along the lines of...
P% of the last vote (w/round up or down specified) that reached a quorum -or- Q a constant, whichever is greater.
To be clear I'm not saying we should remove people quickly, but if 4 or 5 people go AWOL for like six months we suddenly need about two thirds for our quorum. We don't even have to kick them off the committee, we could either reduce the quorum requirement or let someone "play over" the committee seat in question, to use a poker term.
Quorum on the fast track at like, 12 committee members, as that's a majority of our 23?
I think the quorum should be relatively low, maybe half the committee plus one - so MrWookie's 12? That way there isn't too much pressure on people if they aren't around for a few days, they won't be inadvertently blocking a quorum.
We also need a process for removing people from the committee for inactivity to avoid having quorum blocked by a few people just disappearing and a few others not being around.
So this would allow us to fast track smaller items with a 12-0 (or more) vote, but larger items (and non fast-tracked smaller items) would require 48 hours and a consensus 12+-0 vote OR an additional 48 hours (so 96 total) and a 2/3 or 3/4 supermajority vote.
Quorum on the fast track at like, 12 committee members, as that's a majority of our 23?
Traditionally quorum is set to half the voting population. Which is fine, although I might suggest rounding down a little and setting it at Q=10 instead of Q=12.
P% of the last vote (w/round up or down specified) that reached a quorum -or- Q a constant, whichever is greater.
A poll with following options: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 50% of who has posted in the Government forum in last two weeks? 