[vote] Update OpenWrt rules

[Hauke Mehrtens]

On 10/28/25 00:38, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-10-27 at 21:41 +0000, Imre Kaloz wrote:
>>
>> NACK. Counting neutrals as half-approvals goes against logic and
>> morality as much as if we would do the opposite. With penalizing the
>> abstaining, which is another valid form of neutrality, it's diluting
>> opposition, not to mention it could disproportionately sway outcomes.
> 
> I don't see your logic.
> 
> You can make an argument about the morality of making assumptions about
> *absent* voters who do not vote at all. But in the case of an active
> neutral vote, that is a choice that the individual makes at the time of
> the vote, in the full knowledge of how it will be interpreted. How
> could it be immoral to interpret their vote in precisely the way that
> we have agreed in advance?
> 
> The idea is that a neutral vote counts towards the quorum — that person
> has *seen* and acknowledged the vote, and has not voted against the
> motion. It shouldn't be counted towards the actual yes/no decision, and
> I pointed out the error in the mathematics there.
> 
> But as Rich points out, we should proceed with this rule change and
> then we can tweak that afterwards, as getting quorum under the existing
> rules is too difficult (which is why they need changing in the first
> place).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> As a basic example, if 10 people vote, 4 for, 2 against and 4
>> neutral, although the vote would fail, a reintroduction of the same
>> question with the claim that "it got majority support, just not
>> enough voters"
> 
> The statement that "it got majority support" would be true. The voters
> who cast a neutral vote, after seeing 4 "yes" and 2 "no" votes, would
> have done so deliberately, knowing that the motion had majority support
> and that their vote does not change that.
> 
> The idea is to have three active vote possibilities: "yes", "no", and
> "whatever". And it's important to allow for the latter when we also
> want to ensure that we have a sufficient quorum for decisions, and set
> it apart from simply failing to vote.

Hi,

I agree with David's mail and can not really add anything substantial.

Hauke