Friday, July 16, 2010

Quorum is what now?

There are several CfJ’s that can be passed IF quorum is 9. Obviously, I believe that this is true. The only other value that quorum could possibly be, is, I believe, undefined, which I don’t think is a valid theory.

So, in this thread, can we reach a consensus of what the value of quorum is currently, so that we can process cfjs/dovs?

I believe quorum to currently be #@s/2+1 (at the time of posting: 9) discuss.

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

16-07-2010 19:45:01 UTC

Quorum is whatever we can make stick against CfJs after the DoV resolves.

I suspect that adhering to regular quorum rules stands the greatest chance of survival.

h2g2guy:

16-07-2010 19:50:03 UTC

According to the current ruleset as amended by your CFJ, quorum is 9 unquestionably, in my opinion.

ais523:

16-07-2010 19:53:52 UTC

Quorum is 9 under my interpretation too (in which it’s always been equal to half the @s + 1, and lilomar’s CFJ failed as a result).

lilomar:

16-07-2010 19:56:30 UTC

Josh, the problem is, unless we have a set quorum that everyone agrees on, it will take both the dov and any cfjs 48 hours to resolve.

The only place that I have seen any theory in which it would not be nine is in irc, where ais523 postulated the possibility of a theory where it was undefined (he did not claim to ascribe to this theory, he just said that it was a possible theory) therefor, unless someone posts to this thread with a reason it is not, I am going to proceed as if it is 9.

Klisz:

16-07-2010 19:57:20 UTC

Quorum is simultaneously 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Josh: Observer he/they

16-07-2010 19:58:33 UTC

Actually, lilomar, we really only need a quorum that quorum of people agree on. An admin admins the DoVs and we deal with the consequences as they come. If anyone challenges that - and I think it’s pretty unlikely - then they can CfJ it later, but I doubt they’ll win.

lilomar:

16-07-2010 19:58:44 UTC

It may have been at one point, but my CfJ collapsed it to only 9.

lilomar:

16-07-2010 20:00:31 UTC

arrow was @Darth Cliche

@Josh: but if quorum is undefined, how do you know what quorum of people agree on? :p I get your point though, hence this thread to make sure that I am interpreting what most @‘s agree to be quorum.

Klisz:

16-07-2010 20:04:28 UTC

lilomar: But your CfJ didn’t pass.

lilomar:

16-07-2010 20:06:14 UTC

My CfJ passed if Quorum was simultaneously 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, because it reached quorum at 1-0.

Klisz:

16-07-2010 20:19:44 UTC

Aha! But quorum was also nine! Q.E.D.!

lilomar:

16-07-2010 20:23:21 UTC

But the rules don’t say that you can’t pass something if quorum is greater than the number of for votes, only that you can if quorum is equal to the number of for votes, so that is irrelevant.

Klisz:

16-07-2010 20:37:20 UTC

Ah, point. So it passed if 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. However, that didn’t actually happen - or rather it might have, if I like your dynasty idea.

Galdyn:

17-07-2010 01:59:19 UTC

I dont care what the different theory’s are. Quorum is 9 and lets move on. (unless other ppl join/unidle or idle) in which case quorum can change according to the formula listed in the first sentence of the definition of Quorum.

Klisz:

17-07-2010 13:00:11 UTC

Galdyn: You don’t have to pay attention to this post, you know.