[aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar

[Loui Chang]

On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:15 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> On 12/05/2010 12:07 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Sat 04 Dec 2010 23:59 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >>On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> >>>On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang<louipc.ist at gmail.com>   wrote:
> >>>>On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >>>>>On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been only
> >>>>>in one direction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>i modified his account on aur to normal user. Ranguvar, i'm sorry for this
> >>>>>and when you'll have time again you should consider applying again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Loui can you disable his account on sigurd?
> >>>>>Andrea can you remove his privileges from bugtracker and forum?
> >>>>
> >>>>You still need to create a voting proposal.
> >>>>Why doesn't anyone read the damned bylaws?
> >>>
> >>>I myself thought there would be voting, but I just realised Ionut
> >>>inferred that we needn't vote from the following:
> >>>
> >>>"for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above."
> >>>
> >>
> >>above being the voting procedure and from my understanding what is the
> >>opposite of having a voting? NO voting.
> >>
> >>
> >>we had this situation in the past and we didn't had any voting procedure. we
> >>just removed it and we continued our business.
> >>
> >>with or without the vote, the result would be the same. And to be fair, we
> >>are investing too much time in the removal, even more that he invested in
> >>community.
> >
> >Then don't waste any time on it. Leave it alone.
> >But if you do want to remove a Trusted User you MUST follow the bylaws.
> >Three days discussion and Five days of voting for removal due to
> >inactivity. Read the bloody bylaws.
> >
> 
> maybe i lack the understanding of words and to quote from bylaws:
> 
> "The removal of a Trusted User may also occur at any time.
> 
> A motion must be made by at least two active Trusted Users for the removal
> of a Trusted User. (THIS IS ME)
> Following the motion, standard voting procedure commences with a discussion
> period of 7 days.
> 
> There is one special case for removal, removal due to unwarranted and
> undeclared inactivity, for which standard voting procedure deviates from the
> above."

The problem is your eyes stopped reading where you wanted them to stop.

The next two sentences read:
> This motion is also automatically triggered by repeated quorum
> offenses, as described in the Quorum 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.

You can't just pick and choose the passage that fits best for goal.
You need to take the bylaws in their entirety.