Eric Bélanger wrote:
FYI: it's already in the by-laws:
"Following the discussion period, a voting period opens. Simple YES, NO , or ABSTAIN votes are to be cast under the Trusted User section of the AUR homepage by at least a quorum of active TUs. "
and
"A TU may declare themselves inactive... <snip> They are exempt from quorums and in fact cannot vote."
You have misunderstood my proposal. The phrase "active throughout both the discussion period and the voting period" is not the same as "active". The following message from Chris and my reply to it should help to clarify the difference. Christopher Brannon wrote:
Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> writes:
Given the recent wave of TU applications, I think it might be a good idea to amend the TU Bylaws regarding quorum for addition of a TU. The section currently contains the following specification:
Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences with a discussion period of 5 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 days.
I recommend that it be changed to this:
Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences with a discussion period of 5 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 days. The quorum is counted among TUs who are active throughout both the discussion period and the voting period.
Coincidentally, you sent your application three days after I sent mine, so I voted on yours. If this amendment was accepted, our two newest TUs wouldn't be able to vote on the three remaining applications. It does make sense.
-- Chris
*nods* My intention is not to block new TUs from jumping in on a running vote as I would expect that most new TUs would have been following this list and the discussion prior to their addition. The change would simply prevent someone from arguing that quorum wasn't reached by calculating it against the augmented team, e.g. if we were initially 24 active TUs then quorum is 16, but if 2 new TUs are added on the the last day then quorum would technically be 17 given the current bylaws. Even if we could resolve the issue with a simple discussion, I would prefer to avoid it and the confusion that would go with it, including the possibly erroneous rejection of an application before a conclusion is reached. Regards, Xyne