On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:15 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/05/2010 12:07 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Sat 04 Dec 2010 23:59 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang<louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > >I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them. >
i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been only in one direction.
i modified his account on aur to normal user. Ranguvar, i'm sorry for this and when you'll have time again you should consider applying again.
Loui can you disable his account on sigurd? Andrea can you remove his privileges from bugtracker and forum?
You still need to create a voting proposal. Why doesn't anyone read the damned bylaws?
I myself thought there would be voting, but I just realised Ionut inferred that we needn't vote from the following:
"for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above."
above being the voting procedure and from my understanding what is the opposite of having a voting? NO voting.
we had this situation in the past and we didn't had any voting procedure. we just removed it and we continued our business.
with or without the vote, the result would be the same. And to be fair, we are investing too much time in the removal, even more that he invested in community.
Then don't waste any time on it. Leave it alone. But if you do want to remove a Trusted User you MUST follow the bylaws. Three days discussion and Five days of voting for removal due to inactivity. Read the bloody bylaws.
maybe i lack the understanding of words and to quote from bylaws:
"The removal of a Trusted User may also occur at any time.
A motion must be made by at least two active Trusted Users for the removal of a Trusted User. (THIS IS ME) Following the motion, standard voting procedure commences with a discussion period of 7 days.
There is one special case for removal, removal due to unwarranted and undeclared inactivity, for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above."
The problem is your eyes stopped reading where you wanted them to stop. The next two sentences read:
This motion is also automatically triggered by repeated quorum offenses, as described in the Quorum subsection of this document. For this special case, SVP is followed with a discussion period of three days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 5 days.
You can't just pick and choose the passage that fits best for goal. You need to take the bylaws in their entirety.