[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?

Kaiting Chen kaitocracy at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 02:56:51 EST 2010

Apparently there are some people who think the bylaws are broken. On another
readthrough it seems to me that the entire document could be streamlined
substantially, and definitions could be made more explicit (especially in
the matter of activity versus inactivity).

In addition it is my personal opinion that the whole idea of the quorum
should be reworked. According to Robert's Rules of Order, "should
approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting
except in very bad weather or other extremely unfavorable conditions.". In
the case of an internet presence where inclement weather is not an issue it
seems to me that all active Trusted Users should be required to participate
in a vote; if an active Trusted User does not vote then this should be taken
as a sign of unwarranted and undeclared inactivity.

Also I believe that it would be nice to include a clause indicating that the
requisite numbers of votes for a vote have been achieved the vote should be
allowed to end prematurely. For example if there are thirty Trusted Users
and twenty of them vote for the addition of a Trusted User by the second day
of the voting procedure then it should not be necessary to extend the vote
to the full seven days because no amount of nay's can effect a negative
outcome. In this case the five day delay that would result from a strict
adherence to the current bylaws is wasteful inefficiency.

In fact it is my desire that the bylaws resemble as closely as possible an
already established system for such proceedings such as Robert's Rules of
Order. --Kaiting.

Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

More information about the aur-general mailing list