Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Post History

71%
+3 −0
Q&A Drafting the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel

Article 30 discusses that substitutes are sworn in if and only if at least 1/3 of the panel is recused. What happens when exactly two members of the panel are absent? 1/3 of 7 is 2 and change, so i...

posted 4y ago by DonielF‭

Answer
#1: Initial revision by user avatar DonielF‭ · 2020-07-08T14:23:02Z (almost 4 years ago)
Article 30 discusses that substitutes are sworn in if and only if at least 1/3 of the panel is recused.

What happens when exactly two members of the panel are absent? 1/3 of 7 is 2 and change, so if exactly two members are missing, that's less than 1/3. 

Articles 16 and 17 discuss scenarios requiring a 2/3 majority. If no members are recused, that's 5/7. If exactly one member is recused, that's 4/6. But if two members are recused, you need 4/5. Compared to the 71% majority required for a full panel and the 66% majority if one person is missing, 80% seems unreasonably high, being a 14% range (with respect to the total panel).

I propose one of the following solutions:

1. Readjusting Article 30 to kick in if more than one member is recused; this prevents a 5-person panel from existing, limiting the range to just 5%. Alternatively, readjust all fraction to round to the *nearest* integer, not the *next* integer, which has the same result.
2. Readjusting Articles 16-17 to kick in at 3/5, not 2/3. For higher-member panels that's still 4/6 or 5/7, and it maintains an 11% range, not 14%.