On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Ionuț Bîru
On 12/05/2010 01:06 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:44 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/05/2010 12:25 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
http://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html
I've noticed that there have been a few cases relatively recently where people don't really understand the bylaws.
I'd like to encourage all Trusted Users to read over the bylaws periodically to make sure that they fully understand the procedures. Questions and clarifications are welcome on this list.
If something is hard to understand, the bylaws can be revised and amended. If you don't agree with a certain procedure that may also be amended.
Thanks for your consideration.
because the bylaws are cryptic and i would enumerate below the logic of the bylaws understand right now. in parentheses
Well, the biggest cryptic thing in the Bylaws are lines like:
bool SVP( motion, unsigned short discussion_period, float quorum, unsigned short voting_period );
and
SVP( addition_of_TU, 5, 0.66, 7 );
We probably shouldn't look at TU procedure so much like a computer program. hah.
I would change the SVP lines to something like:
Addition of a Trusted User: 5 Five days of discussion 7 Seven days of voting 66% Sixty-six percent Quorum
This is today logic. And this time my eyes read until the end.
I'm glad you figured it out. :)
Ok, i would ask to read again, two times or more, because i didn't comment on TU addition. We are on removing procedure.
This thread is for improving the quality of bylaws or maybe removing.
-- Ionuț
I'm not TU, but I have a few suggestions for cleaning up the bylaws. Standard Voting Procedure: I think it would help to standardize the discussion and/or voting period time lengths. I don't see anything that would be particularly time sensitive, so I think both periods could be changed to 7 days for all motions. At the very least the voting periods could all be 7 days since the only motion that doesn't have a 7 day voting period is the motion to remove an inactive TU and I don't think there's any reason to rush that. Right now 'no' and 'abstain' votes appear to be treated exactly the same. The abstain option should either be removed or it should be made clear that it is only used for purposes of achieving a quorum. Quorum: It isn't clear how a TU that changes his/her status during a vote would be counted for the quorum. I would suggest saying that any non-voting TU that was inactive for any period during the discussion or voting periods should not be counted for the quorum.