[Members] Abstaining on XSF ballots

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Fri Nov 7 15:50:29 UTC 2014

On 7 November 2014 13:31, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> wrote:

> > 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.
> No!
> 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.

§3.8 says:

The Directors shall be elected by the affirmative vote of a plurality of
the votes of the Members present in person or proxy, including through
remote communication, at the meeting and entitled to vote on the election
of Directors.

Whereas §3.13 says "with the proviso that no individual receiving less than
a majority of votes cast shall be elected"

I think they both say it's a matter of "votes cast" rather than the quorum.

However, I do seem to recall this changed as we "fixed" the bug with ties;
it's probably that originally, voting "no" meant the same as abstaining.

> > 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.
> >
> > /K
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20141107/55cc817a/attachment.html>

More information about the Members mailing list