Redefine quorum to allow all to vote

[leebyron]

This is an alternative proposal to #818 which, while more complicated, is a better fit for the goals and principles, namely:

• All TSC members should have the capacity to vote, regardless of what we're voting on.
• TSC votes should remain efficient and resilient to any member not participating.

To do this, I'm proposing changing the way we vote by replacing the concept of a "voting member" with a "quorum":

• A "quorum" is the total number of votes needed for a vote to be considered valid, and this proposes defining that in a similar way we used to define voting members, but simplifies this to "one of three" instead of "two of five".

• Removes the concept of a "voting member" - this means all members are always eligible to vote, even if they do not count towards quorum.

[leebyron]

This is just a move to keep this section together and focused

[nyteshade]

I don’t have any issues with these changes. Looks good to me.

[leebyron]

Ok @graphql/tsc - good feedback, I've simplified this by counting a majority relative to votes rather than the harder to explain union of attending/voting. This has a minor downside of potentially allowing a vote by a non-representative majority, but has the benefits of being way easier to explain and aligns well with the goal of keeping elections efficient and avoiding deadlocks.

[leebyron]

@graphql/tsc please take another look since this is materially different (and hopefully simpler/better)

[mjmahone]

I think this is really well worded now, and is good documentation for new TSC members on what exactly is available for them: what their obligations are and what actions have which consequences. Thank you!

[brianwarner]

This is a novel way to approach this, but that's not a bad thing. I can appreciate that it allows groups to get decisions made quickly at small scale, but ensures TSC members can weigh in if needed.

Thinking about this from the shoes of someone who would be administering a vote, here's how I understand the process:

1. How many TSC members count as "attending" members?
2. What is the threshold of "attending" member ballots required to render this vote valid? (e.g., majority or supermajority)
3. Have enough "attending" members voted to reach that threshold?
   1. If not, which "attending" members do we need to remind?
4. Once the threshold of "attending" members has been met, could any additional votes change the outcome?
   1. If no, conclude the election.
   2. If yes, follow the procedures and deadlines outlined here.

LGTM.

[leebyron]

Exactly. In fact, I'll add these admin steps!

[brianwarner]

Adding an explicit followup to the recent changes, these LGTM as well.

[schrockn]

👍🏻

[dschafer]

Looks good to me.

[leebyron]

Thanks for the careful read and great feedback everyone. If anyone spots any additional grammar/spelling/clarity improvements I'm happy to address those in a follow up

[IvanGoncharov]

LGMT 👍

[schrockn]

Approved!

[benjie]

This looks solid in general, with the one caveat that it's not explicit what would happen if quorum were not reached during a TSC member election vote. I'm assuming the TSC seats would remain empty until a "valid" vote (a vote reaching quorum) takes place. This doesn't seem ideal, but I also don't think it's particularly likely, so I'm okay with it.

Approved.

[leebyron]

Yeah the two scenarios where a vote is not valid are:

Either: not enough people respond, in which case what you described is right, we pester people to vote to try not to create a off schedule problem, but not the end of the world if that happens.

or, you get enough intentional abstains that you cant actually reach quorum. In this case the vote dies on the vine. But there's a distinction between "we voted on this in the past and decided not to do this" vs "we tried to vote on this in the past, but didn't reach a conclusion at that time"