[aur-general] Understanding the Trusted User Bylaws
shacristo at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 08:36:00 EST 2010
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Thorsten Töpper
<atsutane at freethoughts.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:26:45 -0500 Shacristo <shacristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not TU, but I have a few suggestions for cleaning up the bylaws.
>> Standard Voting Procedure:
>> I think it would help to standardize the discussion and/or voting
>> period time lengths. I don't see anything that would be particularly
>> time sensitive, so I think both periods could be changed to 7 days for
>> all motions. At the very least the voting periods could all be 7 days
>> since the only motion that doesn't have a 7 day voting period is the
>> motion to remove an inactive TU and I don't think there's any reason
>> to rush that.
> I see the current time values fine, one week to think about a person
> that will gain some serious influence on the user base(AUR). Also one
> week to think about the removal of someone who left a good impression.
> Also 3 days of discussion and 5 for the vote are fine, not everyone
> votes at the first day of the period and so the one person still has a
> chance to say "Hey sorry there was xyz.".
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the current time
values, I just think it would make the rules clearer if they were more
>> Right now 'no' and 'abstain' votes appear to be treated exactly the
>> same. The abstain option should either be removed or it should be
>> made clear that it is only used for purposes of achieving a quorum.
> No that is a bad idea. I myself abstained two votes simply because
> someone was not really convincing at that time but there also was no
> real thing to say that he would not do fine later. It helps to get the
> quorum as everyone who feels like that can do so, also it has no
> influence if the applicant becomes accepted or not as No still can
> reach more votes than Yes and vice versa.
What I was saying is that with the current phrasing it is not entirely
clear what is required to pass a motion. "A simple majority is needed
to pass or reject the motion." If that is taken to mean 51% of all
votes then 'abstain' and 'no' are essentially equal and 'abstain' is
unnecessary. If that's 51% of non-abstaining votes, which I believe
is how most people are interpreting it, then I just think that needs
to made more clear.
>> It isn't clear how a TU that changes his/her status during a vote
>> would be counted for the quorum. I would suggest saying that any
>> non-voting TU that was inactive for any period during the discussion
>> or voting periods should not be counted for the quorum.
> "All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting
> procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums."
> In other words: TUs marked as inactive on the list are not counted in
> at all.
Again, there are situations where that language becomes ambiguous. If
an inactive TU becomes active again on day 5 of a 7 day vote is he
counted towards thw quorum or even allowed to vote? I wasn't
suggesting that inactive TU's be allowed to vote.
More information about the aur-general