[vote] Update OpenWrt rules

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 14:47 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 14:06 +0000, Adrian Schmutzler wrote:
> > 
> > Though I do not support the "neutral = half-approval" concept either,
> > I think it is important to move forward with the main subject.
> 
> There is no "neutral = half-approval" concept. Can you explain why you
> think there is?

Hm, I suppose you might have got it from the actual wording of the
proposal? :)

But I think that's just really crappy wording. It would have been
better to say that explicit neutral votes don't count towards the
approval tally. So instead of "majority among the active members who
participate in the vote" it should have said "majority among the active
members who cast a non-neutral vote". The maths works out (almost) the
same without the weird connotations.

We *should* fix the details of the maths, and we should certainly fix
the wording, but thank you for approving as-is so that we can be a bit
more agile with our subsequent cleanups. 

So having accepted that the current wording is indeed suboptimal, I'd
be interested in your response to this part:

> Given the need for quorum, do you believe that voters should have the
> option to indicate their *presence* and *awareness* for the purposes of
> quorum, without affecting the outcome of the yes/no part of the vote
> either way?
> 
> If we give them such an option, and if a voter *chooses* to take that
> option, what effect should it have?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5069 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/attachments/20251104/5f6a69af/attachment.p7s>