Member count - Preamendment discussion

[mapfi]

We've got 55 members in our civgroup, but less than 20 active posters. Since we have quorums for amendments and resolutions the member count is rather important.
I've been proposing changes here but it seems that Markos doesn't have time for the implementation.
So what if we delegate the necessary search work to the Senior Justice? Or maybe Locutus knows some way to easily (because the seacrh is rather a lot of klick-work) find out which member of the civgroup did post during the last two months. Would 2 months be ok, or do we take 3, or just 1?
And if we adjust the member count like that I'd say we have to raise the bar for the quorum from 1/6 to 1/3 of the community voting yes.

Thoughts?

[Martin Gühmann]

The other possibility is that we say that a fixed number of members needs to vote Yes. E.g eight members have to vote Yes so that a Resolution can be considered as passed.

-Martin

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

if someone is willing to do the work, so shall it be.
and i guess 2 months is right, if that someone wants even more work, he can send a warning mail after 1 month of silence.

[Dale]

Further to Martin's comments, why not make it so that at least 15 people need to vote to make it valid? Whether they vote one way or the other. It won't be every time that you'll get 8 yes votes. Further, using Martin's comments literally, if 8 people vote yes and 10 people vote no, does that mean it passes because 8 voted yes?

[H Tower]

well, i'm about to enter the senior justice position, and I wouldn't mind doing the work for finding out who has posted here in the last two months or so, it shouldn't take more than half an hour of real work

[Gilgamensch]

2 month sounds OK for me.

But the question: Who should be the responsible? We could leave it to the senior judge, although I would prefer to say more general the court, as we have seen even the court may be not available

And the counting should be finished prior to the nomination period!

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

lets say the court is responsible. of course the court is free do give the actual work to somebody else, if they find somebody.
if we reduce the citizenship to active posters, a quorum of 1/3 should be fine.
so the rule would be:
a resolution is passed if all of the 3 following conditions are met:
a) at least 1/3 of the citizens have cast a vote (yes, no, abstain)
b) there are more "yes" votes than "no" votes.
c) there are more "yes" and "no" votes than "abstain" votes.

[Gilgamensch]

I think you could reduce it to two:

a) at least 1/3 of the citizens have cast a vote (yes, no, abstain)
b) There are more Yes votes than No or Abstain.

[mapfi]

requiring a quorum in overall votes is what we had before JBytheway's amendment and is just completely stupid in our situation because lets say the quorum was 15 votes and the poll shows 10yes,4no - another no vote makes it pass. People opposing the changes will hold their vote and the whole process gets screwed up.
Furthermore I find 1/3 of votes of the active citizens way too low, it'd be lower than now. That's why I proposed 1/3 of the active ctizens have to vote yes. Fixing the quorum at a certain number without counting people risk it becoming more or less easy to reach with more or less people present. That's why I'm not too fond of that idea.

[Pedrunn]

The connie doesnt use 1/3 of the citizens voting in the poll anymore but 1/6 of the citizens voting yes

But i agree tthis should be only for active members in the last 2 months. Do you think we could convince MarkG to do this feature to DGs?

[mapfi]

Re: Member count - Preamendment discussion

Like I said in my first post: (read people, read!)

Originally posted by mapfi
And if we adjust the member count like that I'd say we have to raise the bar for the quorum from 1/6 to 1/3 of the community voting yes.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well, we have to change the con anyway, to get inactive citizens out. of course we need the old count to change the connie. don't blame me. i said this before the dg was started

[Gilgamensch]

And as it looks like, we might never been able to change anything anymore anywhere anyhow.................

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

at least not legal

viva la revolucion!

[Tamerlin]

IMO, as far as polls are concerned the quorum should apply to the overall number of voters wether they voted "yes" or "no"... the quorum should be restrictively applied to the number of citizens voting "yes" for the amendments only...