833
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + Line 11:
Line 12: + + + + + + + + Line 25:
Line 34: + + + + + + + + + + Line 60:
Line 79: − + − + − + − +
2018 Quorum Reduction Vote (view source)
Revision as of 15:58, 29 October 2018
, 15:58, 29 October 2018no edit summary
== Sponsors ==
== Sponsors ==
* Ryan Pierce
* Ryan Pierce
* Adam Stein
== Background ==
== Background ==
PS:One's Bylaws currently require a quorum of at least 1/3 of the full members for a vote to pass. They also have a convoluted mechanism, described below, which is not currently implemented and would be difficult to implement in practice. This vote modifies the Bylaws by changing the quorum number to 1/10 of the full members and eliminating the non-voting member method to reduce quorum.
PS:One's Bylaws currently require a quorum of at least 1/3 of the full members for a vote to pass. They also have a convoluted mechanism, described below, which is not currently implemented and would be difficult to implement in practice. This vote modifies the Bylaws by changing the quorum number to 1/10 of the full members and eliminating the non-voting member method to reduce quorum.
=== A High Quorum is Unnecessary ===
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised states that the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons."
Quorum is important for in-person meetings, where business can be conducted without prior notice, to prevent a small group from taking advantage of low attendance to push forward their own agenda without the knowledge of the larger group. However, this is not true of PS:One member votes. We have a mandatory 5 days e-mail notice period, and typically there is discussion on the mailing list long before that. It is not possible for a member vote to escape scrutiny and be passed without the membership knowing about it. Any bad vote can then be voted down.
Robert's Rules states that quorum "should approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting except in very bad weather or other extremely unfavorable conditions." It is clear that failure to meet quorum is intended to be an edge case, not the norm. However, it seems far too common at PS:One for votes to fail quorum. Thus, quorum isn't working as designed. Instead, quorum frequently is being misused as a way to oppose a vote. Reducing the quorum requirement significantly will allow the system to function as designed.
=== The Current Quorum Suppresses No Votes ===
=== The Current Quorum Suppresses No Votes ===
By reducing quorum to 10%, the default specified in the Illinois General Not For Profit Corporation Act, then virtually every vote will meet quorum. Persons opposing a vote can no longer gamble on it failing to make quorum, and instead will have an incentive to vote No and convince others to do likewise. This will make opposition to each vote explicit. And it likely will result in decisive actions on each proposal, not the repeated limbo of repeated votes we have been observing.
By reducing quorum to 10%, the default specified in the Illinois General Not For Profit Corporation Act, then virtually every vote will meet quorum. Persons opposing a vote can no longer gamble on it failing to make quorum, and instead will have an incentive to vote No and convince others to do likewise. This will make opposition to each vote explicit. And it likely will result in decisive actions on each proposal, not the repeated limbo of repeated votes we have been observing.
=== Example ===
Assume the organization has 120 full members. Quorum is therefore 40.
Assume a vote has 35 yes votes and 3 no votes. The vote would fail due to lack of quorum.
Now assume both Alice and Bob dislike the vote. If they both cast no votes, the vote tally will be 35 to 5, and the vote passes.
It follows that Alice and Bob's optimal action in this case would be not to vote. But then that raises difficult philosophical questions. Why should Alice and Bob, who are entitled to a total of two votes, be able to negate the yes votes of 35 members?
=== The Current Non-Voting Members Procedure is Difficult to Implement ===
=== The Current Non-Voting Members Procedure is Difficult to Implement ===
== Timeline ==
== Timeline ==
* First rough draft posted: 10/23/2018
* First rough draft posted: 10/23/2018
* Vote template added: TBD
* Vote template added: 10/23/2018
* Language locked: TBD
* Language locked: 10/29/2018
* Submitted to Secretary for scheduling: TBD
* Submitted to Secretary for scheduling: 10/29/2018
* Vote scheduled for; TBD
* Vote scheduled for; 11/6/2018
* Vote first conducted: TBD
* Vote first conducted: TBD
* Outcome of vote: TBD
* Outcome of vote: TBD