[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?
louipc.ist at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 08:10:25 EST 2010
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 03:35 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> Sorry for all the mail regarding the bylaws but let me take a quick moment
> to go through one extremely broken case of the current procedure.
> 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*.
> A sixty-six percent quorum requires that at least twenty Trusted Users vote;
> if quorum is not reached for two consecutive votes the motion fails.
> Therefore by not voting these twelve Trusted Users will have effectively
> voted nay, and falconindy's application will not be accepted.
Well, this kind of gives us a mechanism to remove TUs that are actually
inactive or uncooperative, but maybe they should automatically be put up
for removal after blocking two proposals rather than three. That way it
operations would flow better. Either that, or we can make proposals go
for three tries to reach quorum.
I'd rather go for the time saver hehe.
More information about the aur-general