Re: Quorum (Re: [ga] CORRECTION!!!)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 06:28:07AM -0600, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 19:27 25/03/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >The salient point here is that THERE IS A QUORUM RULE.  There is a clear
> >definition of exactly how many people are participating, how they got
> >there, and exactly how many of them it takes pass something.
> >
> >That is not the case here.
> 
> At the moment, the GA Assembly has 291 voting members 
> (http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html).
> 
> For a resolution, an absolute majority of the members who bother to vote at 
> all must support the resolution (no minimum quorum).

Yes, my apologies: I suppose that you could call a rule that said that
there was no quorum requirement a "quorum rule".  But it is degenerate
to the point of uselessness.  

I use the word "useless" to describe the "rule", because under this
"rule", precisely one voter can pass a resolution, and no reasonable
person from the NC or the Board or anywhere else is going to give any
weight whatsoever to a "resolution" supported only by a single vote.

Therefore, one still must go back and analyze any vote to determine the
level of support it had, to decide if the result should be given any
weight.  Hence the "rule" has no significance.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html