[Standards] Fwd: [Council] Minutes 2015-07-22

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Thu Jul 23 10:12:03 UTC 2015


> On 23 Jul 2015, at 10:59, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 July 2015 at 10:23, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
> On 23 Jul 2015, at 08:58, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> > > Dave abstains, Fippo, Kev, Lance, Matt to vote on list.
> > >
> >
> > For the record, I didn't abstain.
> 
> He who writes the minutes…
> 
> But less flippantly, I think this was an abstention. XEP-0001 uses the word ‘neutral’ to describe a vote of 0, (with +1 being approve and -1 being disapprove, with reasons), and formally stating that you are not voting for or against is, at least by the only dictionary I have to hand, the definition of abstention - meaning a neutral vote is an abstention.
> 
> 
> Neutral is probably the better term, but not abstention.
> 
> An abstention would not count in terms of finding at least a simple majority, and would also be illegal by XEP-0001, too, which says we must vote.

I think we’re arguing about whether the dictionary is right or not. XEP 1 uses the term ‘neutral’ to refer to a formal position of not voting for or against. My dictionary uses the term ‘abstention’ to refer to a formal position of not voting for or against. I could have said ‘0’ or ‘neutral’, to mean the same thing.

I think majorities are independent of this, in any case. XEP1 demands a majority of Council, not of Council-who-have-voted, so 0/neutral/abstention is functionally equivalent to failing to vote, as it has no effect on the count of favourable votes needed for a majority, the number of favourable votes cast, or the presence of any vetos (veto is actually not the right term here, because what xep1 requires is different, but it’s good enough for jazz).

/K




More information about the Standards mailing list