[vote] Update OpenWrt rules

[Imre Kaloz]

On Tue, 2025-10-28 at 21:25 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:

<snip>

>> Neutral votes that have been cast in the past included a reasoning,
>> and they were not about "half-support" - they were mostly raising
>> concerns without the preventing the majority from proceeding if they
>> choose so.
> 
> Exactly that.

I wrote the opposite you did, how it's "exactly that"?

>> The proposal wants to use neutral votes in favor of proposals and penalize
>> abstaining people.
> 
> No, the proposal uses neutral votes precisely as you described them.
> They're not in favour; the only count toward the quorum. You can think
> of them as half in support, and half against. Balancing out.

People vote neutral because they don't want the drama like this that comes
with voting NACK.

> (Except for the mathematical error which actually makes them slightly
> more negative than they should be, as I pointed out, and which we
> should fix in a subsequent tweak).

If I would have a dollar every time I've heard that everything will be
fixed in tweaks later on...

<snip>

> The point is that we have too many inactive voters and it's hard to
> reach quorum using the existing rules.

Currently neither not voting or voting neutral counts towards the quorum.

You want to change that, citing inactive people, which seems off, as the
only vote that would require quorum is about changing the rules. Which is
required because *checks notes* you want quorum.

Just to make sure, you want to also inactivate people to remove them from
pool of voters, because *checks notes* quorum?

Why exactly do we need either, given there were no recurring issues with
voting? Even if we would need quorum, why exactly do we need both changes
right now in this omnibus?


Imre