[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Sun Dec 5 04:15:02 EST 2010

On 05/12/10 17:56, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> 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.

So how do you distinguish not voting because of inactivity and not 
voting because the voting period was cut because the result was decided?


More information about the aur-general mailing list