Hey, On Tuesday 07 December 2010 15:37:41 Xyne wrote:
I've rewritten that section with some changes (see below). I've tried to keep the wording unambiguous and relatively simple. Note the following functional changes:
* If 50% or more of all active TUs vote NO then the vote is rejected even in the absence of quorum. This is logically coherent with accepting the vote when more than 50% vote YES in the absence of quorum.
* Default durations for various items such as discussion periods and voting periods.
I think this is really helpful. A few more thoughts interleaved below, including a suggestion on the "normally" point.
I'm not sure about the wording of "... shall normally be ... but may be determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws." and similar passages. The intention is to enable other sections of the bylaws and nothing else to supersede the defaults. For example the TU removal procedure allows for shorter discussion and voting periods. The section thus provides the standard template for voting that can be tweaked by other sections as necessary. The tricky bit is wording it in such a way that the person making the proposal can't arbitrarily change them.
SVP SECTION:
Standard Voting Procedure (SVP) describes the formal procedure used by TUs to accept or reject proposals regarding TU affairs.
SVP begins with a proposal, for example the addition of a TU or an amendment to the bylaws. The proposal should be clear and concise and it must be posted on the aur-general mailing list (aur-general).
Do we require that a proposal has only "yes" and "no" as options, as well as "abstain"? Could a proposal present a list of options? How would this affect the voting, or should it not be allowed? (If not, I think we should state explicitly what is [only] allowed.)
The discussion period begins when the proposal is posted on aur-general. The duration of the discussion period shall normally be 5 days but may be
I'd suggest "5 full days" rather than just "5 days", for the removal of any potential ambiguity.
determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws. All discussion shall take place on aur-general. During the discussion period, votes shall not be cast.
I'm not quite sure what "all discussion shall..." means. Does it mean that discussion outside of aur-general is forbidden, not allowed as evidence in a court, etc.? What's the purpose of this line?
The voting period begins when the discussion period ends. The duration of the voting period shall normally be 7 days but may be determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws.
In answer to your "normally" point, perhaps: "The duration of the voting period shall be 7 days unless determined otherwise according to the nature of the proposal and as described elsewhere in the bylaws."
During the voting period, TUs may vote YES, NO or ABSTAIN. Votes shall be cast under the Trusted User section of the AUR homepage. At the end of the voting period, all votes shall be tallied.
In the context of SVP, TUs are considered active if they are marked as active when the voting period ends.
Quorum shall normally be 66% of all active TUs, with participation measured by the sum of YES, NO and ABSTAIN votes, but may be determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws.
again, perhaps just make it a little tighter like above: "Quorum shall be 66% of all active TUs, with participation measured by the sum of YES, NO and ABSTAIN votes, unless determined otherwise according to the nature of the proposal and as described elsewhere in the bylaws."
The proposal is normally accepted if EITHER the number of YES votes is greater than half the number of active TUs OR quorum has been established and the number of YES votes is greater than the number of NO votes but these conditions may be superseded by other sections of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal.
Same thing, perhaps replace "is normally accepted... ...but these conditions may be superseded" with "is accepted... ...unless these conditions are superseded".
The proposal is normally rejected if EITHER more than half of all active TUs have voted NO OR quorum was established and the number of NO votes is greater than or equal to the number of YES votes but these conditions may be superseded by other sections of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal.
Same thing.
A rejected proposal may not be presented again before a waiting period has passed. The duration of the waiting period shall normally be 3 months but may be determined by the nature of the proposal as described elsewhere in the bylaws. The waiting period begins at the end of the voting period.
Same thing.
If quorum is not established by the end of the voting period then the proposal is neither accepted nor rejected. A second SVP shall begin to establish the status of the proposal. If the proposal is not accepted at the end of the second SVP then it shall be rejected.
But yes, I think these are very clear. Well done! Pete.