On Sun 12 Dec 2010 04:21 +0100, Xyne wrote:

The following is a proposed replacement for the current SVP section of the TU bylaws:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendment&oldid=124557

The changes address several issues recently brought up on this list. Briefly, these include: * enabling a vote to pass in the absence of quorum when more than 50% of active TUs have voted YES * enabling a vote to fail in the absence of quorum when 50% or more of active TUs have voted NO * clarifying the text to eliminate ambiguities

Please see Kaiting's "[aur-general]Amendment" thread and Loui's "[aur-general][PATCH]tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure" thread for more details.

This message marks the beginning of the 5-day discussion period before the amendment is put to a vote.

Can we get that as a patch so I may apply it to the hosted version if the vote passes? The content should probably be on the mailing list as well. Other than that it looks good to me.

On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang wrote:

On Sun 12 Dec 2010 04:21 +0100, Xyne wrote:

...

The following is a proposed replacement for the current SVP section of the TU bylaws:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendment&oldid=124557

The changes address several issues recently brought up on this list. Briefly, these include: * enabling a vote to pass in the absence of quorum when more than 50% of active   TUs have voted YES * enabling a vote to fail in the absence of quorum when 50% or more of active   TUs have voted NO * clarifying the text to eliminate ambiguities

Please see Kaiting's "[aur-general]Amendment" thread and Loui's "[aur-general][PATCH]tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure" thread for more details.

This message marks the beginning of the 5-day discussion period before the amendment is put to a vote.

Can we get that as a patch so I may apply it to the hosted version if the vote passes? The content should probably be on the mailing list as well.

We can compare-and-contrast better looking at a patch, so +1 to that.

Ronald van Haren wrote:

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ray Rashif wrote:

...

On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sun 12 Dec 2010 04:21 +0100, Xyne wrote:

...

The following is a proposed replacement for the current SVP section of the TU bylaws:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendment&oldid=124557

The changes address several issues recently brought up on this list. Briefly, these include: * enabling a vote to pass in the absence of quorum when more than 50% of active   TUs have voted YES * enabling a vote to fail in the absence of quorum when 50% or more of active   TUs have voted NO * clarifying the text to eliminate ambiguities

Please see Kaiting's "[aur-general]Amendment" thread and Loui's "[aur-general][PATCH]tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure" thread for more details.

This message marks the beginning of the 5-day discussion period before the amendment is put to a vote.

Can we get that as a patch so I may apply it to the hosted version if the vote passes? The content should probably be on the mailing list as well.

We can compare-and-contrast better looking at a patch, so +1 to that.

yes, please provide a patch.

Ronald

In the time that it would take me to find sources and create a patch you could have easily provided one from the submitted text. If someone wants to point me to the relative source and describe the preferred format of the patch then I will waste some of my time to create it, but I will tell you now that I think the request itself is a bit ridiculous. It's plain text. *sigh*

Loui Chang wrote:

Just make a copy of the bylaws html file, alter it, and make a diff. It isn't a ridiculous request because people may not be clear on what text is being removed or added, so you should make such changes unambiguous with a patch. The bylaws also call for a patch for any amendment.

http://aur.pastebin.com/AUvnYAWn

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:19:28 +0000 Peter Lewis wrote:

On Sunday 12 December 2010 03:21:30 Xyne wrote:

...

The following is a proposed replacement for the current SVP section of the TU bylaws:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendment&oldid=124557

The changes address several issues recently brought up on this list. Briefly, these include: * enabling a vote to pass in the absence of quorum when more than 50% of active TUs have voted YES * enabling a vote to fail in the absence of quorum when 50% or more of active TUs have voted NO * clarifying the text to eliminate ambiguities

Please see Kaiting's "[aur-general]Amendment" thread and Loui's "[aur-general][PATCH]tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure" thread for more details.

This message marks the beginning of the 5-day discussion period before the amendment is put to a vote.

Are we voting on this then?

I guess we should, let's vote for another one to agree before starting one and do a mistake with that ;-) -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Thorsten Töpper wrote:

Don't do anything else when typing a mail... We should wait for another TU to agree with that, not vote for another one...

We should probably go ahead and vote to get this taken care of. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

Xyne writes:

The voting period has begun. TUs, please vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu.php?id=45

Both the patch and the wiki page contain the following typo. I'll quote From the patch. + The proposal is rejected if EITHER + </p> + <ol> + <li> + the number of NO votes is greater than or equal to the number of active + TUs have voted NO OR + </li> + <li> + quorum was established and the number of NO votes is greater than or Shouldn't this be: "the number of no votes is greater than or equal to half the number of active TUs"? -- Chris

On Sat 15 Jan 2011 20:10 +0100, Xyne wrote:

Christopher Brannon wrote:

...

Shouldn't this be: "the number of no votes is greater than or equal to half the number of active TUs"?

Yes it should. Here's a corrected patch: http://aur.pastebin.com/dBdinYb9

Thank you. I've applied the patch. See here: http://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html#SVP There were several technical problems with the patch, but I solved them. For the future please attach the directly to the email. Inline is always preferred, since it allows for contectual comments for discussion. Cheers!