[Members] Abstaining on XSF ballots
kurt.zeilenga at isode.com
Fri Nov 7 13:31:21 UTC 2014
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 5:16 AM, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2014, at 13:07, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> wrote:
>> I believe that our voting rules do not preclude a member from abstaining in any question and does not require a member to make all the allowed choices. This would allow one to, for instance, abstain in the membership question for a candidate whom works for the same firm as the voting member.
>> I think the member bot should be updated to such that each yes/no question also has an abstain choice and for each question which allows one to “choose N of listed options” that an option to make no further choices be given.
>> I note that a member who abstains from a ballot question, or all ballot questions, should be considered present for the purposes of establishing a quorum (the question of quorum is independent of the ballot question itself).
> I raised the question of abstaining from membership votes a while back, and the conclusion I think we reached was that it was largely redundant, because an abstention would be functionally equivalent to voting against the candidate.
Assuming a ballot question requiring 50%+1 of approval of those casting votes, if one has 10 people casting ballots on a yes/no question, 4 yes, 3 no, and 3 abstains means the measure passes (assuming quorum is met). If one is votes no instead, it would be 4 yes, 6 no and the measure doesn’t pass.
> For Board and Council elections, though, it seems wrong to require one to vote for five candidates (this wasn’t true with the old voting system), so we should, as and when possible, fix it.
More information about the Members