[aur-general] Understanding the Trusted User Bylaws
shacristo at gmail.com
Sat Dec 4 19:26:45 EST 2010
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru at archlinux.org> 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:
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> 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 );
>>> 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.
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.
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.
More information about the aur-general