[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?

[Allan McRae]

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?

Allan