On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:44 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

On 12/05/2010 12:25 AM, Loui Chang wrote:

...

http://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html

I've noticed that there have been a few cases relatively recently where people don't really understand the bylaws.

I'd like to encourage all Trusted Users to read over the bylaws periodically to make sure that they fully understand the procedures. Questions and clarifications are welcome on this list.

If something is hard to understand, the bylaws can be revised and amended. If you don't agree with a certain procedure that may also be amended.

Thanks for your consideration.

because the bylaws are cryptic and i would enumerate below the logic of the bylaws understand right now. in parentheses

Well, the biggest cryptic thing in the Bylaws are lines like:

bool SVP( motion, unsigned short discussion_period, float quorum, unsigned short voting_period ); and SVP( addition_of_TU, 5, 0.66, 7 );

We probably shouldn't look at TU procedure so much like a computer program. hah. I would change the SVP lines to something like:

Addition of a Trusted User: 5 Five days of discussion 7 Seven days of voting 66% Sixty-six percent Quorum

This is today logic. And this time my eyes read until the end.

I'm glad you figured it out. :)

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

On 12/05/2010 01:06 AM, Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:44 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

On 12/05/2010 12:25 AM, Loui Chang wrote:

...

http://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html

I've noticed that there have been a few cases relatively recently where people don't really understand the bylaws.

I'd like to encourage all Trusted Users to read over the bylaws periodically to make sure that they fully understand the procedures. Questions and clarifications are welcome on this list.

If something is hard to understand, the bylaws can be revised and amended. If you don't agree with a certain procedure that may also be amended.

Thanks for your consideration.

because the bylaws are cryptic and i would enumerate below the logic of the bylaws understand right now. in parentheses

Well, the biggest cryptic thing in the Bylaws are lines like:

...

bool SVP( motion, unsigned short discussion_period, float quorum, unsigned short voting_period );

and

...

SVP( addition_of_TU, 5, 0.66, 7 );

We probably shouldn't look at TU procedure so much like a computer program. hah.

I would change the SVP lines to something like:

...

Addition of a Trusted User:    5 Five days of discussion    7 Seven days of voting  66% Sixty-six percent Quorum

...

This is today logic. And this time my eyes read until the end.

I'm glad you figured it out. :)

Ok, i would ask to read again, two times or more, because i didn't comment on TU addition. We are on removing procedure.

This thread is for improving the quality of bylaws or maybe removing.

-- Ionuț

I'm not TU, but I have a few suggestions for cleaning up the bylaws. Standard Voting Procedure: I think it would help to standardize the discussion and/or voting period time lengths. I don't see anything that would be particularly time sensitive, so I think both periods could be changed to 7 days for all motions. At the very least the voting periods could all be 7 days since the only motion that doesn't have a 7 day voting period is the motion to remove an inactive TU and I don't think there's any reason to rush that. Right now 'no' and 'abstain' votes appear to be treated exactly the same. The abstain option should either be removed or it should be made clear that it is only used for purposes of achieving a quorum. Quorum: It isn't clear how a TU that changes his/her status during a vote would be counted for the quorum. I would suggest saying that any non-voting TU that was inactive for any period during the discussion or voting periods should not be counted for the quorum.

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Thorsten Töpper wrote:

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:26:45 -0500 Shacristo wrote:

...

I'm not  TU, but I have a few suggestions for cleaning up the bylaws.

Standard Voting Procedure: I think it would help to standardize the discussion and/or voting period time lengths.  I don't see anything that would be particularly time sensitive, so I think both periods could be changed to 7 days for all motions.  At the very least the voting periods could all be 7 days since the only motion that doesn't have a 7 day voting period is the motion to remove an inactive TU and I don't think there's any reason to rush that.

I see the current time values fine, one week to think about a person that will gain some serious influence on the user base(AUR). Also one week to think about the removal of someone who left a good impression. Also 3 days of discussion and 5 for the vote are fine, not everyone votes at the first day of the period and so the one person still has a chance to say "Hey sorry there was xyz.".

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the current time values, I just think it would make the rules clearer if they were more consistent.

...

Right now 'no' and 'abstain' votes appear to be treated exactly the same.  The abstain option should either be removed or it should be made clear that it is only used for purposes of achieving a quorum.

No that is a bad idea. I myself abstained two votes simply because someone was not really convincing at that time but there also was no real thing to say that he would not do fine later. It helps to get the quorum as everyone who feels like that can do so, also it has no influence if the applicant becomes accepted or not as No still can reach more votes than Yes and vice versa.

What I was saying is that with the current phrasing it is not entirely clear what is required to pass a motion. "A simple majority is needed to pass or reject the motion." If that is taken to mean 51% of all votes then 'abstain' and 'no' are essentially equal and 'abstain' is unnecessary. If that's 51% of non-abstaining votes, which I believe is how most people are interpreting it, then I just think that needs to made more clear.

...

Quorum: It isn't clear how a TU that changes his/her status during a vote would be counted for the quorum.  I would suggest saying that any non-voting TU that was inactive for any period during the discussion or voting periods should not be counted for the quorum.

"All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums."

In other words: TUs marked as inactive on the list are not counted in at all.

Again, there are situations where that language becomes ambiguous. If an inactive TU becomes active again on day 5 of a 7 day vote is he counted towards thw quorum or even allowed to vote? I wasn't suggesting that inactive TU's be allowed to vote.

On Sunday 05 December 2010 11:27:41 Thorsten Töpper wrote:

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:26:45 -0500 Shacristo wrote:

...

Right now 'no' and 'abstain' votes appear to be treated exactly the same. The abstain option should either be removed or it should be made clear that it is only used for purposes of achieving a quorum.

No that is a bad idea. I myself abstained two votes simply because someone was not really convincing at that time but there also was no real thing to say that he would not do fine later. It helps to get the quorum as everyone who feels like that can do so, also it has no influence if the applicant becomes accepted or not as No still can reach more votes than Yes and vice versa.

Yeah, as Thorsten says, "abstain" and "no" are not the same thing, any more than "abstain" and "yes" are, since the logic applies both ways. "Abstain" basically means "I don't know/care about this one, and I'm happy to leave it to those who feel stronger than I". It's a kind of passive participation :-) HTH, Pete.