On Wed 2007-12-19 10:04 , Callan Barrett wrote:
After seeing Roman's post in the pressh TU vote I think we need to start enforcing the bylaws based on inactivity now it has become a problem, last thread we only *just* got half of the TUs to vote in it. I have no problem with pressh becoming a TU anyway as I don't believe someone should miss out because of lazy TUs or TUs marked active who are actually inactive.
To combat this I think we should put into effect the "Quorum" section of the bylaws or at least some form of it to keep the votes up properly. I've looked at the last three votes we had, the following people have not voted for a long time (I don't even know who two are?) and should really be put up for removal if they have no explanation of their absence:
xterminus vegai dejari encelo
I don't like to remove TUs but I believe this is required for us to keep any order and keep from a snowball effect of just gathering more and more TUs over time. If these people do not respond I think it's best we start the removal procedure on all of them (provided people start *VOTING*) at some point we can work out.
I also need to mention, aside from these 4 people I think there are about a third of the TUs who MUST vote in the currently running thread (unless of course you already have) or else they'll also have to be added to that list.
FYI Encelo flagged himself as Inactive long time ago. ( http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#encelo ) I think we should open a "ping thread" were TUs must reply in say, 2 weeks, otherwise they will be flagged as Inactive (!= Removed). -- Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino Arch Linux Trusted User Please send personal email to themolok@gmail.com Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB