[tsc-devel] Voting rules change proposal (was: 2nd General Discussion - Request for Agenda)

Quintus | Mon, 14 Mar 2016 21:31:45 UTC

datahead <…r@f…> writes:
> 10. Modify voting rules document at
> https://github.com/Secretchronicles/documents/blob/master/votingrules/votingrules-2015-08-15.pdf
> so that additions of team members only require a 2/3rds majority of
> people who actually voted, rather than all existing team members.

I make the following proposal for changing the voting rules’ wording:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Art. 1

§2(2) is rephrased to read:

> The vote requires the Relative Qualified Majority in favour of adding
> the new person to the team.

                                 Art. 2

In §3(1)(Nr.3)(2) the words “This requires a two thirds majority” are
replaced with “This requires the Relative Qualified Majority”.

                                 Art. 3

In §10, the words “simple majority” are capitalised so they read “Simple
Majority”.

                                 Art. 4

§20 is rephrased to read:

> Changes to this document require a vote with the Absolute Qualified
> Majority being in favour of the change.

                                 Art. 5

A new §13a is introduced after the existing §13 and before the section
III. heading with the following text:

> (1) Simple Majority is the majority of all team members who have
> voted.
>
> (2) Relative Qualified Majority is reached if two thirds of all team
> members who have voted are in favour of the option in question.
>
> (3) Absolute Qualified Majority is reached if two thirds of all team
> members who have the right to vote are in favour of the option in
> question.

                                 Art. 6

These changes enter into force immediately after the Declaration of
Results of the vote for accepting them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposal replaces all majority-related terms in the voting rules
with clear terms, which are specifically normed in a new §13a: Simple
Majority, Relative Qualified Majority, and Absolute Qualified
Majority. The Simple Majority is the majority used for all ordinary
votings, i.e. the one for deciding heated topics. The other two majority
rules are for specific cases: acquisition and end of team membership,
and changes to the voting rules document itself.

The majority requirement for changing the voting rules themselves (§20)
is not modified, but only made more clear so that there can be no doubt
that it requires a 2/3 majority of all people allowed to vote.

In the current version of the voting rules it is not clear whether
acquisition of team membership requires a 2/3 majority of all people
allowed to vote or only a 2/3 majority of the people who actually
voted. To address this concern and to bring the acquisition of team
membership voting process in sync with the team removal vote — which
only requires 2/3 of the voting team members — the wording of the both
vote requirements is adapted to the newly defined majority terms. By
placing the team membership bar relatively (still a 2/3 majority!) low,
lockup of the voting procedure by mass absence of team members is
prevented. The hurdle for changing the voting rules themselves on the
other hand is intentionally kept high as even if one doesn’t take part
on a given vote that does not indicate one wants to voting rules to
change behind one’s back. If someone permanently stays absent, it is
still possible to remove him from the team by means of the regular
removal procedure and thus cutting down the requirements for voting
rules change if necessary. As voting rules changes should be kept at a
minimum, a lengthy procedure is not a problem, but a feature.

I was unsure on how to count people who have participated, but actively
abstained (e.g. by posting "I abstain"). I think they should be included
into the 2/3 qualified majorities calculation, but not into the Simple
Majority one. This would mean that for the votes requiring a qualified
majority (either relative or absolute), people actively abstaining
(rather than nonparticipating) could bring the vote to failure even
though they didn’t vote against it. The above proposal does not contain
a clause for these actively abstaining people, but if someone provides a
nice one, we should include it.

As for the entering into force (Art. 6 of the proposal), I honoured the
demand for a flexible voting process for this change. The way Art. 6 is
phrased allows to get the proposal into force as soon as it has the
required 2/3 majority of the entire team, regardless of whether this
already happens here on the ML/forum or finally in the General
Discussion.

Feedback appreciated. If no objections are raised, I will announce
voting as soon as possible so that we can have a result by April
9th. The last day a vote announcement can be made before the GD is
2015-03-25; I definitely want this specific change to be announced prior
so we have a longer voting phase. 2015-03-25 is also the deadline for
any other voting announcements for the GD, but I will explain this in a
separate message.

Valete,
Quintus

-- 
#!/sbin/quintus
Blog: http://www.guelkerdev.de

GnuPG key: F1D8799FBCC8BC4F