[aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH]
Hi,
Here's a patch for the TU-bylaws that resulted from discussion in the previous
thread:
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-August/024745.html
I hope this is in the correct format. I haven't used git send-email because I
still haven't configured it and didn't want to risk doing something stupid in a
hurry. For those of you who prefer reading the resulting document, I have
attached the source file and the generated HTML file.
Please read through the previous thread for an explanation of the changes.
Let the discussion period begin!
From 8328526fc0fef469d9edb1abf0f0448c2f440e90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xyne > subsection of this document. For this special
-case, SVP is followed with a discussion period of three days, a quorum of 66%,
-and a voting period of 5 days.
+In this special case, the motion may be made by one TU instead of two, and SVP
+is followed by a discussion period of three days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting
+period of 5 days.
----
-SVP( inactivity_removal_of_TU, 3, 0.66, 5 );
+SVP( removal_of_inactive_TU, 3, 0.66, 5 );
----
Amendment of Bylaws
@@ -179,7 +157,7 @@ Amendment of Bylaws
These bylaws may be amended at any time.
-An active Trusted User must motion for an amendment by sending an announcement
+A TU must motion for an amendment by sending an announcement
to https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general[aur-general].
The message must either contain, or have attached, a patch against this
document which accomplishes the suggested change. SVP is commenced at the time
@@ -190,5 +168,5 @@ voting period of 7 days.
SVP( amend_bylaws, 5, 0.75, 7);
----
-If the amendment fails, the same amendment may not be motioned for for a period
+If the amendment fails, the same amendment may not be motioned for a period
of three weeks.
--
1.8.3.4
On 9 August 2013 19:29, Xyne
... * remove distinction between "active" and "inactive" TUs
So now what happens when so-called active or inactive TUs do not vote and prevent quorum from being established? No action is taken? I see these changes cover disappearing TUs, but not non-participating TUs. I may also just be missing something.
... * various changes to correct or improve English throughout the document
While you're at it:
... mailing list] (aur-general). The proposal must also be worded unambiguously, and such that a YES or NO answer may be given.
-and such that +such that
... 2. quorum was established and the number of NO votes is greater than or equal to the number of YES votes
-quorum was established +quorum has been established
... +Quorums were established to ensure that all matters decided by vote are +representative of the TU group. All TUs are expected to participate in all
The terms "quorum" and "established" are already used in the document with a different meaning, so different wording could be used here, e.g.: +Quorums ensure that matters decided by vote are +representative of the voters as a group. All TUs are expected to participate in all
+A motion must be made by at least two TUs for the removal of a +TU. The motion must be sent to
-removal of a +removal of another
https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general[aur-general], and contain a detailed and valid reason that the TU in question should be removed.
-that the +why the
+OR who has not voted in a consecutive series of voting periods, the starting
How many "consecutive series"?
+is followed by a discussion period of three days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting
-three days +3 days -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 9 August 2013 19:29, Xyne
wrote: ... * remove distinction between "active" and "inactive" TUs
So now what happens when so-called active or inactive TUs do not vote and prevent quorum from being established? No action is taken? I see these changes cover disappearing TUs, but not non-participating TUs. I may also just be missing something.
+OR who has not voted in a consecutive series of voting periods, the starting
How many "consecutive series"?
The full phrase is "who has not voted in a consecutive series of voting periods, the starting dates of which span 2 months or more, shall be brought up for special removal due to inactivity". The sub-clause thus specifies that the length of the series is determined by time, not by number of votes. So, any TU that misses all votes during a period of 2 months falls under the special case for removals. This replaces the old clause specifying 3 votes, as they could easily occur in the same week. Being inactive for a week should not be grounds for special removal. Remember though, this is just for invocation of the special case. If any TU notices that any other TU habitually misses votes then we can start a discussion about it and motion for that TU's removal if deemed appropriate. The other thread contained a suggestion for a TU status page that would show vote participation over some fixed period of time to facilitate the determination of participation. The current by-laws try to automate a process that requires human discretion. This version retains automation for extreme cases and relies on human discretion for the rest. In either case, someone still has to monitor activity of other TUs to determine if there are grounds for removal, but this way will avoid silly edge cases. It is our responsibility to keep an eye on each other, rather than simply induct new TUs and then forget about them until some special case occurs.
+A motion must be made by at least two TUs for the removal of a +TU. The motion must be sent to
-removal of a +removal of another
There is no reason to prevent a TU from motioning for his own removal, even if
it would be silly to do so. I have reworded the clause in a more natural way:
+A motion for the removal of a TU must be made by at least 2 TUs. The motion must
+be sent to
Patch follows:
From abf7664c2b8c99a2e14b8aff8e37b727fdce7d9b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Xyne > subsection of this document. For this special
-case, SVP is followed with a discussion period of three days, a quorum of 66%,
-and a voting period of 5 days.
+In this special case, the motion may be made by one TU instead of two, and SVP
+is followed by a discussion period of 3 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting
+period of 5 days.
----
-SVP( inactivity_removal_of_TU, 3, 0.66, 5 );
+SVP( removal_of_inactive_TU, 3, 0.66, 5 );
----
Amendment of Bylaws
@@ -179,7 +162,7 @@ Amendment of Bylaws
These bylaws may be amended at any time.
-An active Trusted User must motion for an amendment by sending an announcement
+A TU must motion for an amendment by sending an announcement
to https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general[aur-general].
The message must either contain, or have attached, a patch against this
document which accomplishes the suggested change. SVP is commenced at the time
@@ -190,5 +173,5 @@ voting period of 7 days.
SVP( amend_bylaws, 5, 0.75, 7);
----
-If the amendment fails, the same amendment may not be motioned for for a period
+If the amendment fails, the same amendment may not be motioned for a period
of three weeks.
--
1.8.3.4
On 11 August 2013 18:29, Xyne
The current by-laws try to automate a process that requires human discretion. This version retains automation for extreme cases and relies on human discretion for the rest.
Alright, this justifies those changes. Good to go on the rest, AFAICS. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:29:42AM +0000, Xyne wrote:
[...] Patch follows:
I put that patch on a separate branch (proposal-70) in the official TU bylaws repository [1], so that it is easier for people to extract the actual commit and review the changes in the way they prefer. I think it is a good idea to include both the discussion and a link to the proposal branch in the AUR proposal description. Xyne, could you please remember this when the voting period starts? I think we should also update the bylaws and complete the "Amendment of Bylaws" section with instructions on how to submit future proposals. Mention the Git repository, mention `git send-email`. Mention that every proposal will be merged into a separate branch so that TUs can easily review the latest version when voting. I will submit a proposal after the end of the voting period for this one. [1] https://projects.archlinux.org/tu-bylaws.git/?h=proposal-70
Hi, The discussion period has ended. Please cast your votes: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=70 Regards, Xyne
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:15:27PM +0000, Xyne wrote:
Hi,
The discussion period has ended. Please cast your votes: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=70
I know that it is a bit late for comments on the proposal but I just noticed that your patch doesn't seem to change the sentence mentioning that TUs are counted at the end of a vote. Is that intentional or did you just miss that? Also, I just wondered whether it is okay to accept a proposal before the voting period ends? Currently, there are 19 yes votes, 37 TUs and there is no way the number of TUs can increase until the end of the proposal.
Regards, Xyne
On 16.08.2013 11:00, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
Also, I just wondered whether it is okay to accept a proposal before the voting period ends? Currently, there are 19 yes votes, 37 TUs and there is no way the number of TUs can increase until the end of the proposal.
No, people should be allowed to vote no if they feel the change is wrong just for the sake of letting the others know. (IMHO) I'm not sure if we have any rule about that though. In case you can't find one assume we can't accept it before the end.
On 2013-08-16 11:00 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:15:27PM +0000, Xyne wrote:
Hi,
The discussion period has ended. Please cast your votes: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=70
I know that it is a bit late for comments on the proposal but I just noticed that your patch doesn't seem to change the sentence mentioning that TUs are counted at the end of a vote. Is that intentional or did you just miss that?
I did indeed forget to add a statement that TUs should be counted at the beginning of the voting period. I can't find any clause that states the quorum is counted at the end, only participation. I suggest the following additional change, which adds a clause to the SVP section and patches the current Quorum section:
Only those TUs who are counted towards quorum may participate in the vote.
[[Q]] Quorum ------
Quorums ensure that all matters decided by vote are representative of the TU group. All TUs are expected to participate in all votes and the preceding discussions whenever possible.
Quorum shall be 66% of all TUs at the start of the voting period and participation shall be measured by the sum of YES, NO and ABSTAIN votes, UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal.
Given that this was part of the discussion I doubt that anyone who voted yes would object to the changes, but I do not know how to proceed. On 2013-08-16 13:10 +0200 Florian Pritz wrote:
On 16.08.2013 11:00, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
Also, I just wondered whether it is okay to accept a proposal before the voting period ends? Currently, there are 19 yes votes, 37 TUs and there is no way the number of TUs can increase until the end of the proposal.
No, people should be allowed to vote no if they feel the change is wrong just for the sake of letting the others know. (IMHO)
I'm not sure if we have any rule about that though. In case you can't find one assume we can't accept it before the end.
We have encountered this situation before. The consensus was that it is better to wait and let everyone cast their vote, even if acceptance is guaranteed. By our own bylaws, the votes are tallied at the end of the voting period anyway. Regards, Xyne
The proposed changes have been accepted. Final tally: yes: 27 no: 0 abstain: 4
On 9 August 2013 13:29, Xyne
Hi,
Here's a patch for the TU-bylaws that resulted from discussion in the previous thread:
I can't obviously comment on grammar as I'm not a native speaker, so I have just a single comment. I think it may be better to split this into two commits, one containing the little changes like referring to trusted users as TUs or explicitly mentioning the aur-general and the other one containing the recently discussed changes regarding the voting procedure and TU removal. Lukas
Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
I can't obviously comment on grammar as I'm not a native speaker, so I have just a single comment. I think it may be better to split this into two commits, one containing the little changes like referring to trusted users as TUs or explicitly mentioning the aur-general and the other one containing the recently discussed changes regarding the voting procedure and TU removal.
I have considered that but at this point it would just require more work for no real benefit. I would prefer to leave the proposal as-is. If it is rejected then I or someone else can extract the linguistic changes. Regards, Xyne
participants (5)
-
Florian Pritz
-
Lukas Fleischer
-
Lukas Jirkovsky
-
Rashif Ray Rahman
-
Xyne