[vote] Update OpenWrt rules

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2025-10-28 at 13:04 +0000, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-10-28 at 13:25 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > > If you don't have a strong opinion about a motion, there are two things
> > > > you can do:
> > > > 
> > > >   1. Just don't vote at all.
> > > >   2. Explicitly cast a 'neutral vote' to say "I've seen this, and I
> > > >      don't mind either way".
> > > 
> > > So let's say we only vote for a few months about giving commit access to
> > > people who you don't support yet you are not against them getting access
> > > your two options are:
> > > 
> > > 1. "Just don't vote at all", and you are now inactive - congratulations!
> > > 2. Explicitly cast your neutral vote and make it a half-approval.
> > 
> > What on earth is wrong with that? I mean, the *term* "half-approval" is
> > a bit clumsy any maybe misleading but the effect is precisely what
> > you'd desire, surely? You indicate your presence and you count towards
> > the quorum, but without affecting the actual yes/no part of the vote
> > either way. It's not a *no*, it's not a *yes*, it's mathematically in
> > between when counting the votes to see if it passed.
> 
> I'm pretty sure 0 is right in the middle mathematically.

The way we were counting, 0 is a "no" vote, and 1 is a "yes". 

You add up the votes, and see if it comes out to the required
proportion (in our case 2/3) of the *total* number of voters.

So in this case, a neutral "I don't want to affect the outcome" really
ought to be 0.66666.

Of course, you can count differently. As an *example*, and conveniently
forgetting the 2/3 part and going for 50/50 as the requirement because
it makes the maths easier for the *example*... you could count a 'yes'
vote as +1, a 'no' vote as -1, add them up and the total just has to be
*positive* for the result to be an approval.

In *that* case, 0 would be 'right in the middle' as you say, and would
be what we use for a neutral vote. But that isn't how we were counting.

> > (And as noted, it ought to be 2/3 not 1/2 for the maths to be truly
> > correct).
> 
> I understand maths guarantee that there is no way neutrals alone to
> flip a vote with 2/3. It still can be used to create a false sense of
> support for revotes and invalidates the intent of a neutral vote.

Well, for a start *whatever* the 'neutral vote' is defined to be by the
rules, that really ought to be the intent of the voter who, under those
rules, decides to cast precisely that 'neutral vote'. That's kind of
tautological.

But what do you believe *should* be the intent of a 'neutral vote'?
What is the option that the voter is most *likely* to need? 

Isn't is precisely that "I am present, and active, and have observed
this motion. I should be counted towards quorum, but do not wish to
affect the arithmetic of the yes/no votes"? 

And isn't that precisely what the neutral vote is *doing*, in the
proposed rules?


> > > > That's what the second option is for, to allow someone to explicitly
> > > > say that they *were* present and paying attention for the purposes of
> > > > quorum, but that they just didn't have a strong opinion about the
> > > > actual question.
> > > 
> > > The new proposal is taking away that option. What it achieves is basically
> > > whenever you don't fully support the vote, you should always go against
> > > it, even if it causes tension and drama in the community.
> > 
> > I don't understand why you think so.
> 
> Because the new rules would turn your neutrality to half-approvals when
> they should be considered as half-disapprovals as well.

Yes!!!! That is *precisely* what they are? They are half way between
the 0 of a "no" and the 1 of a "yes". They are half approval, and half
disapproval.

Or if we count it the other way, they would be a 0, half way between +1
and -1.

(Again, the 2/3 threshold makes that slightly more complex but less
gloss over that for now).

> > How would you *want* this explicit "I'm here but don't care" neutral
> > vote to be handled, if not how it's being proposed?
> 
> If you are asking what would be a fair solution, I would say that neutrals
> should stay 0 and add them to the quorum. Given the inactivity clause is
> supposed to fix most of your concerns, for a vote to pass, make the
> requirement 2/3 of the active votes "yes" _or_ 50%+ of all people who have
> voting rights.

Hm, I'm not sure I understand. How is a 'neutral vote' different to a
'no vote' in that case?

Let's take an example....

There are 6 yes and 3 no votes, out of 20 active voters. So it's just
about a 'yes' by the votes cast but just short of the 50% quorum
required.

I don't care, but I cast a neutral vote, just to show that I *have*
been paying attention and that this isn't happening without my consent.
I want to be considered when counting the *quorum* against the 50% 
threshold but basically don't want to be counted in the yes vs. no part
at all. Isn't that the option I should have?

What if we were to rephrase the 'neutral vote' explicitly in those
terms as counting towards the quorum threshold but not being included
in the yes/no tally at all? Would you be happy with that?


-------------- 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/20251028/07cdb983/attachment.p7s>