On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:54:41AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
Any other opinions? Yes, we should drop completely the active statement.
This requires a separate proposal.
Of course. We are just trying to make sure nobody raises immediate objections before submitting a new patch and restarting the whole discussion process. I will resubmit a new proposal tomorrow.
[...]
I didn't think of it like that but I tend to agree now... Does anybody disagree?
+0 The hypothetical one-TU-rules-all case has been brought up before, but I can't cite any discussion or conclusion.
It is not just the one-TU-rules-all case. As Sébastien already mentioned, establishing a quorum means that the result is representative among all eligible voters. It doesn't just mean that enough TUs who happen to be online at the right time care.
Anyway, we still need to find a way to count the total number of TUs. That number needs to be recorded at some point of time during the vote.
The total number of TUs is a recorded statistic in the AUR, AFAICS. Or are you referring to something else?
The total number of TUs isn't fixed. It changes from time to time and it might change during a SVP. I agree that it is a rare case but why not find a proper way to handle that while we're talking about it...
[...] * Record active at start, add newly active, ignore newly inactive, ignore newly added, ignore newly removed
So we're ignoring the fact that adding/removing a TU during the SVP distorts the results? Because it is a corner case?
What do you think?
I think we need more opinions. Xyne? Anyway, if anyone's looking for some bylaw amendment history:
Agreed. Added Xyne to Cc.
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-December/000127.htm... https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012196.htm... https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012534.htm... [...]