Thank you for the detailed response. My current apprehension is the possibility of a split vote that would lead to a ratification impasse, due to a 6 member CC body. This could potentially be very likely if the minimum threshold is reduced to 5. I believe q member would be more likely to resign if they knew governance wouldn't stall upon their departure, even thought the increased risk of impasse was introduced. I'm a big big fan of "can't do harm" rather than relying on the best intentions of others "won't do harm". With the CC minimum size set to 7 the expectations is clear and the risk to inaction is also clearly defined without the need to rely on the best intentions of others or hope we don't end up in a 50% impasse.
By reducing the requirement to 5 we introduce additional states of non ratification from one to two, making inaction (non ratification) a more likely outcome.
Edit history
2 versions, newest first.
Thank you for the detailed response. My current apprehension is the possibility of a split vote that would lead to a ratification impasse, due to a 6 member CC body. This could potentially be very likely if the minimum threshold is reduced to 5. I believe q member would be more likely to resign if they knew governance wouldn't stall upon their departure, even thought the increased risk of impasse was introduced. I'm a big big fan of "can't do harm" rather than relying on the best intentions of others "wont to harm". With the CC minimum size set to 7 the expectations is clear and the risk to inaction is also clearly defined without the need to rely on the best intentions of others or hope we don't end up in a 50% impasse.
By reducing the requirement to 5 we introduce additional states of non ratification from one to two, making inaction (non ratification) a more likely outcome.