# Re: [MirageOS-devel] [PATCH 3/3] Significant changes to decision making; some new roles and minor changes

```On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:13:46AM +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
[...]
> +The table below maps active votes against votes needed to pass:
> +
> +  ---------------------------- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> +  **Active Votes**              10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2
> +  **+1 votes needed to pass**    7  6  6  5  4  4  3  2  2
> +  ---------------------------- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
> +
> +
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +    This comment section contains some examples that have influenced the
> section above.
> +
> +    Let me express this as an algorithm.
> +
> +      treshhold=2/3;
> +      active='number of active members'; (7 for the Hypervisor project; IanC
> is inactive)
> +      favour='number of +1 and +2 votes'
> +      against='number of -1 and -2 votes'
> +      strong-against='number -2 votes'; just added this as a sanity check
> +
> +    One open question is what to do with 0-votes. We could introduce a rule
> discounting
> +    0 votes (let's call it 0-rule). If someone votes 0, we assume they
> really don't care
> +    about the outcome and are considered inactive for the purpose of the
> vote.
> +
> +    In that case:
> +
> +
> +    Without the 0-rule:
> +    - to pass: favour/active >= treshhold
> +      to pass: with active==7, favour >= 5
> +      in other words, 3 (0,-1,-2)-votes block the proposal as we cant
> achieve favour>=5
> +
> +    With the 0-rule, let's consider 1, 2 or 3 0-votes
> +    1=>6: to pass: favour >=4
> +          in other words, 3 (-1,-2)-votes block the proposal
> +    2=>5: to pass: favour >=4
> +          in other words, 2 (-1,-2)-vote blocks the proposal
> +    3=>4: to pass: favour >=3
> +          in other words, 2 (-1,-2)-vote blocks the proposal
> +
> +    Looking at the arithmetic, it does probably make sense to go for the
> 0-rule. If we
> +    do, there ought to be more votes in favour of a proposal, than 0-votes.
> +
> +    On the other hand, not having the 0-rule forces everyone to form an
> opinion,
> +    otherise we will find it hard to make decisions. But in some cases,
> forming an
> +    opinion costs significant mental capacity.
> +
> +    It would also allow us to remove the complexity of differentiating
> between
> +    active and non-active leadership team members by assuming that no vote,
> equals
> +    a "0" vote.
> +
> +    Opinions?
>

I'm in favour of having 0-rule here.

Wei.

_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel
```

 Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.