This proposal suggests changing the quorum for a meeting of members from 1/3rd of the membership to 1/10th (the default in New Mexico, the state in which the Foundation is incorporated.) Please vote yay or nay on this change. -A
Created attachment 562918 [details, diff] Adjust the quorum to 1/10th
currently we are at ~80 members, so quorum would be just 8 members, 5 of which could vote. I'd be more comfortable with a 1/5 quorum. Too much control in the hands of too few (possibly). I vote nay
I vote nay for 1/10. I would agree to 1/5th; OR state that for the purpose of quorum, the trustees themselves are not included in the count.
No, this is just making simpler to not participate in meetings, instead of helping participation. Is also not solving the different time zones penalization.
I vote nay.
I have a bunch of thoughts, but I think the TL;DR is: 1/10th is too few. 1/3rd is too many. We will discuss a new proposal and raise it in a future motion. -A
(In reply to Alice Ferrazzi from comment #4) > No, this is just making simpler to not participate in meetings, instead of > helping participation. > Is also not solving the different time zones penalization. No, this is actually making it more important to participate in meetings, as by not participating you are actively allowing others to make decisions. The current state boils down to discouraging people from participating as people *not* participating block others from making changes, and effectively make participating pointless.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #7) > (In reply to Alice Ferrazzi from comment #4) > > No, this is just making simpler to not participate in meetings, instead of > > helping participation. > > Is also not solving the different time zones penalization. > > No, this is actually making it more important to participate in meetings, as > by not participating you are actively allowing others to make decisions. > The current state boils down to discouraging people from participating as > people *not* participating block others from making changes, and effectively > make participating pointless. What changes would you like to see made? All of what you have asked for has been raised to vote and addressed. None of which are time sensitive matters.
I'm replying to the specific opinion on the specific topic.
@mgorny so you prefer to have a many not reviewed changes ?
(In reply to Alice Ferrazzi from comment #10) > @mgorny so you prefer to have a many not reviewed changes ? Please be more specific because vague statement like that really looks like a provocation rather than attempt at civil discussion.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #7) > (In reply to Alice Ferrazzi from comment #4) > > No, this is just making simpler to not participate in meetings, instead of > > helping participation. > > Is also not solving the different time zones penalization. > > No, this is actually making it more important to participate in meetings, as > by not participating you are actively allowing others to make decisions. > The current state boils down to discouraging people from participating as > people *not* participating block others from making changes, and effectively > make participating pointless. @mgorny are you telling me that you prefer "allowing others to make decision" because motion can pass with less quorum ? In my opinion this motion is just giving less review to motions decision. I think making more simple to partecipate in motions discussions and votation is better. Using bugzilla for vote giving the possibility also to different time zone people to partecipate is nice As far as i concern. But I would prefer anyway to see more partecipation than to cut the quorum.
Can we reiterate this please? I propose again to lower the quorum to 1/10 of the membership, or alternatively to 15 percent of the membership. 1/10 is the default value specified by New Mexico law. 15 % is what Gentoo e.V. has, and we don't have any problems with it.
