[aur-general] Non-native English speakers and the AUR by-laws [WAS: removal proposal for Ranguvar]

[Xyne]

Loui Chang wrote:

> On Sun 05 Dec 2010 13:47 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, PyroPeter <abi1789 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 12/05/2010 03:11 AM, Xyne wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm halfway tempted to create the flowchart but I just don't have the
> > >> time. If
> > >> someone wants to adapt the dot file from the Arch Linux Help Guide
> > >> Flowchart,
> > >> feel free:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> http://xyne.archlinux.ca/miscellaneous/#the-arch-linux-help-guide-flowchart
> > >>
> > >> Make sure that "Blame Allan" is in there somewhere (Was quorum reached?
> > >> --no-->
> > >> Blame Allan -->  etc)
> > >>
> > >
> > > I created a flowchart about the Standard Voting Procedure [1], but I had
> > > problems understanding this bit:
> > >
> > > > A simple majority is needed to pass or reject the motion. In the
> > > > event of a draw, being that 50% is not a majority, the motion does
> > > > not pass.
> > >
> > > Isn't "reject" the same as "does not pass"?
> > > And what means "being that 50% is not a majority"? (50% of what?)
> > >
> > > As I showed in the graph, I understood the quoted text as follows:
> > >
> > > > If more than 50% of the votes cast for YES, the motion passes,
> > > > if not, it is rejected.
> > 
> > That's the correct interpretation. A simple majority requires *greater* than
> > 50% of the votes cast which is what the part up above was trying to express.
> 
> "Did more than 50% of the votes cast for YES?"
> should be changed to:
> "Are the number of YES votes greater than the number of NO votes?"
> 
> Remember abstained votes don't count as votes.

I've never read it that way. If "abstain" counts towards the quorum then it
counts towards the total number of votes. A simple majority must therefore be
more than half of all the votes, i.e. > 1/2 * (yes + no + abstain).

If it wasn't that way then 1 person could vote yes and everyone else could
abstain yet the motion would still pass. I think a greater show of confidence
than 1 "yes" vote should be required before giving someone access to [community]
and the AUR.

Basically, a TU application should be accepted base on a threshold level of
confidence, not an absence of opposition. Requiring a simple majority of those
who participate in the vote achieves that.

Regardless, it's clear that the bylaws need to be amended.