[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?

[Christopher Brannon]

Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy at gmail.com> writes:

> Let's take falconindy's vote as an example; at the moment he has seventeen
> votes for, one vote abstain, and zero votes against. There are thirty
> Trusted Users in total.
>
> Let us now assume that the remaining twelve Trusted Users are against
> falconindy becoming a Trusted User. In this case if each of them vote nay,
> then there will be seventeen votes for, twelve votes against and one vote
> abstained, which means that falconindy will be accepted as a Trusted User.
>
> However, if these remaining twelve Trusted Users are smart and adamant about
> their desire to block falconindy's application, they will simply *not vote*.

Yes, and this would be behavior befitting an asshat.
The bylaws implicitly assume that we're dealing with intelligent,
cooperative, emotionally mature people.  This assumption seems valid to me.

Perhaps a quorum should be unnecessary when a clear majority of all TUs
have voted for or against a given proposal.  17 of 30 constitute a clear
majority.  Would this be a reasonable amendment to the bylaws?  If so,
I'll propose it.

-- Chris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20101205/3f9177b7/attachment.bin>