[vote] Update OpenWrt rules

[David Woodhouse]

On 27 October 2025 23:52:36 GMT, David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>then call it 'don't care' rather than abstain.
>
>David Lang
In the rules it's called neither of those things, is it? It's called a "neutral vote", which describes it fairly well. I also called it *active* abstention, which felt clearer to me, but isn't the wording in the rules anyway.

I think the concept is absolutely right, and necessary. There's a slight error in the mathematics which makes a "neutral" vote actually slightly negative, but we should tweak that in a subsequent amendment. I guess we *could* bikeshed the wording too, if we must.