On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Xyne wrote:

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.

I realised that after reading Chris' reply.

Christopher Brannon wrote:

...

Xyne 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.

As Chris said, your amendment will effectively block new TUs from voting. If a TU is not counted in the quorum, then he shouldn't be able to vote. Otherwise, if he and all active TUs vote, then you'll get a quorum over 100% which doesn't make sense. If your intention is to allow new TUs to vote but not have the quorum affected if they don't, you should modify your amendment (feel free to rephrase): "If a TU is added to the group or declare himself as active during a discussion/voting period, then this TU is allowed to participate in the vote at his discretion. He is only counted in the quorum calculation if he has voted." IMO, this should do what you want. I'm not a TU anymore so I don't really care which ammendment is done to the TU by-laws. Eric

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

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 19:09:38 +0100 Peter Lewis wrote:

On Wednesday 01 September 2010 at 08:38 Xyne wrote:

...

You have misunderstood my proposal. The phrase "active throughout both the discussion period and the voting period" is not the same as "active".

On Wednesday 01 September 2010 at 18:37 Eric Bélanger wrote:

...

If your intention is to allow new TUs to vote but not have the quorum affected if they don't, you should modify your amendment (feel free to rephrase):

"If a TU is added to the group or declare himself as active during a discussion/voting period, then this TU is allowed to participate in the vote at his discretion. He is only counted in the quorum calculation if he has voted."

I think this is basically the right idea (and I'm also not a TU but) I personally think it would get confusing if the quorum varies. In the interests of simplicity, clarity and fairness, my view would be that a quorum should be fixed for the lifetime of a vote, so that everyone participating knows.

This could be done either a) including the new TUs or b) excluding them (though they would still be eligible to vote). I would argue for (b), since this way new TUs missing a vote by days, hours or minutes after their own election don't affect the quorum.

Perhaps a simpler alternative would be to add to Xyne's original wording (which is very clear):

...

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.

Adding:

...

This is only used to calculate quorum and does not prevent any TU from voting.

HTH,

Pete.

Another wording which I find easier to understand would be a modification of the new sentence introduced by Xyne from: "The quorum is counted among TUs who are active throughout both the discussion period and the voting period." to: "The quorum is counted among TUs who are active at the point of time the voting is started at the AUR but every TU is allowed to vote." The timestamp is a fixed value at the database that everyone of us TUs can see and check against the Wikipage, the previous formulation can be misinterpreted for TUs that become inactive two days before the vote ends but already participated or Tus who come back from holidays one day after the discussion started(most abstruse cases that came to my mind). It has obviously the same problem that quorum above 100% is possible, however I don't see a problem with that, as I agree with Xyne that the people that become TUs are following the list and the applications of other people as we probably talk to them if we are not sure how we shall vote for them and they have to show, that they are willing to invest time into this. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4

...

Another wording which I find easier to understand would be a modification of the new sentence introduced by Xyne from: "The quorum is counted among TUs who are active throughout both the discussion period and the voting period."

to: "The quorum is counted among TUs who are active at the point of time the voting is started at the AUR but every TU is allowed to vote."

If a TU then becomes inactive during the vote and prior to casting his or her own vote, he or she would still count towards the quorum, which doesn't make sense. Second proposal:

The quorum is normally counted among TUs who are active from the beginning of the discussion period until the end of the voting period. Other TUs may participate in the vote if they wish, in which case they shall be among those counted to establish quorum.

Example: * 20 active TUs during the whole procedure (start of discussion to end of vote): quorum is 14 (0.66 * 20, rounding up) * 2 new and one inactive TU decide to participate: quorum becomes 16 (0.66 * 23, rounding up) The second sentence thus prevents skewed quorums.

Loui Chang wrote:

...

...

...

Another wording which I find easier to understand would be a modification of the new sentence introduced by Xyne from: "The quorum is counted among TUs who are active throughout both the discussion period and the voting period."

to: "The quorum is counted among TUs who are active at the point of time the voting is started at the AUR but every TU is allowed to vote."

If a TU then becomes inactive during the vote and prior to casting his or her own vote, he or she would still count towards the quorum, which doesn't make sense.

Second proposal:

...

The quorum is normally counted among TUs who are active from the beginning of the discussion period until the end of the voting period. Other TUs may participate in the vote if they wish, in which case they shall be among those counted to establish quorum.

Example: * 20 active TUs during the whole procedure (start of discussion to end of vote): quorum is 14 (0.66 * 20, rounding up) * 2 new and one inactive TU decide to participate: quorum becomes 16 (0.66 * 23, rounding up)

The second sentence thus prevents skewed quorums.

Yeah I agree. A TU should be active throught the discussion period and the first day of voting for them to be counted in the quorum.

I don't think we should necessarily assume that a new TU has been active and following the other issues though.

It may also become an issue if an inactive TU votes on a heated or controversial issue, so I think we shouldn't count any inactive TUs in the quorum, or votes. They could badly skew the vote if they aren't counted in quorum, but their vote is counted.

I interpret the last paragraph to mean that you would block inactive TUs from voting. Is that because it would be difficult to count the quorum? The voting interface is aware of who has voted, but not who is active, right? If we had an interface for updating status (active/inactive) then it could determine quorum automatically: A = { TUs who voted } B = { active TUs } ( |A| / |(A V B)| ) >= quorum i.e. the number of TUs who voted divided by the number of TUs who voted and any active TUs who didn't vote. As for implementation, it should only require a table of TUs with a boolean field, and a simple interface to check active or inactive. Is that something we could do?