On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Thorsten Töpper <atsutane@freethoughts.de>wrote:
For falconindy's application the vote was decided in less than thirteen hours. --Kaiting.
And? Allan already brought up why this proposal is weak. Also not every- one around the world is up 24h, consider different timezones. Also the status of a vote has not to be known public till it's over so get your- self together.
Shortening the voting period a bit: fine, cutting it as soon as there is something(Yes/No) does not make any sense, read the current bylaws read how inactivity is determined and then rethink about your proposal.
I'm not sure what comment Allan made that you are referring to. But here is my argument for this proposal. 1. Is voting really an ideal metric of activity? Let us assume that TU 1 has voted on every procedure, but does not do anything else (maintain packages in [community] or the AUR, etc.). Let us now assume that TU 2 has not voted on a single procedure, but is active in maintaining their packages in [community] and the AUR and regularly participates in discussion on the mailing list. What is the correct procedure here? A TU should move for the removal of TU 1. Should TU 2 be removed because of failure to vote? 2. Let's say that a TU was active in the discussion period. Then the voting period begins and an absolute majority is reached to pass the motion. Other than as a (weak) metric of activity, what is the point of having this TU vote? To allow them to express their opinion on the matter? They have already expressed it during discussion. To be polite? Then leave the vote open so whoever hasn't voted can still click whatever button they like. But if a vote is already decided then please <add new TU>/<remove old TU>/<amend the bylaws> immediately so everyone can get on with their lives. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/