On Thu 02 Sep 2010 08:52 +0000, Xyne wrote: > > > Another wording which I find easier to understand would be a > > > modification of the new sentence introduced by Xyne from: > > > "The quorum is counted among TUs who are active throughout both the > > > discussion period and the voting period." > > > > > > to: > > > "The quorum is counted among TUs who are active at the point of time > > > the voting is started at the AUR but every TU is allowed to vote." > > If a TU then becomes inactive during the vote and prior to casting his or her > own vote, he or she would still count towards the quorum, which doesn't make > sense. > > Second proposal: > > > The quorum is normally counted among TUs who are active from the > > beginning of the discussion period until the end of the voting > > period. Other TUs may participate in the vote if they wish, in which > > case they shall be among those counted to establish quorum. > > > Example: > * 20 active TUs during the whole procedure (start of discussion to end > of vote): > quorum is 14 (0.66 * 20, rounding up) > * 2 new and one inactive TU decide to participate: > quorum becomes 16 (0.66 * 23, rounding up) > > The second sentence thus prevents skewed quorums.
Yeah I agree. A TU should be active throught the discussion period and the first day of voting for them to be counted in the quorum. I don't think we should necessarily assume that a new TU has been active and following the other issues though. It may also become an issue if an inactive TU votes on a heated or controversial issue, so I think we shouldn't count any inactive TUs in the quorum, or votes. They could badly skew the vote if they aren't counted in quorum, but their vote is counted.
