Generally I like idea of taking into account attendance like this. This way someone who participated in a large number of meetings has a chance to get a voice even if he cannot contribute a lot in recent meetings. This will also engage contributors who are not the highest-ranking, but are consistent. Community needs that kind of contributors and I think they should be respected by giving them a vote.

I still do not support penalties for the reasons explained here. This proposal makes it a bit better in regards to penalties by having a larger window to vote on proposals, but still - when council is not able to reach consensus, people who are in the loop more (because they participated in the last meeting) are penalized more.

And I see a small issue with having a larger voting window. Note that both negative and positive knowledge can be gained during the week about the proposal and there isn't necessarily any coordination between the two. That's why it makes sense to make voting happen during the meeting - everyone shares their new knowledge and we make a decision based on that.

For EdenFractal, since it does not yet have any consensus process, I would suggest trying to keep it as simple as possible. I think penalties complicate matters, and I would avoid them in the first version.

Here's what I would suggest: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cr7AJPSNVpGJtYejeo0YaVyLXL1KtrTH/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=104193210757363607373&rtpof=true&sd=true