[aur-general] Amendment

[Kaiting Chen]

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Thorsten Töpper <atsutane at freethoughts.de>wrote:

>  > For falconindy's application the vote was decided in less than
> > thirteen hours. --Kaiting.
>
>
> And? Allan already brought up why this proposal is weak. Also not every-
> one around the world is up 24h, consider different timezones. Also the
> status of a vote has not to be known public till it's over so get your-
> self together.
>
> Shortening the voting period a bit: fine, cutting it as soon as there
> is something(Yes/No) does not make any sense, read the current bylaws
> read how inactivity is determined and then rethink about your proposal.
>

I'm not sure what comment Allan made that you are referring to. But here is
my argument for this proposal.

1. Is voting really an ideal metric of activity? Let us assume that TU 1 has
voted on every procedure, but does not do anything else (maintain packages
in [community] or the AUR, etc.). Let us now assume that TU 2 has not voted
on a single procedure, but is active in maintaining their packages in
[community] and the AUR and regularly participates in discussion on the
mailing list. What is the correct procedure here? A TU should move for the
removal of TU 1. Should TU 2 be removed because of failure to vote?

2. Let's say that a TU was active in the discussion period. Then the voting
period begins and an absolute majority is reached to pass the motion. Other
than as a (weak) metric of activity, what is the point of having this TU
vote? To allow them to express their opinion on the matter? They have
already expressed it during discussion. To be polite? Then leave the vote
open so whoever hasn't voted can still click whatever button they like. But
if a vote is already decided then please <add new TU>/<remove old TU>/<amend
the bylaws> immediately so everyone can get on with their lives. --Kaiting.

-- 
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/