louipc.ist at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 16:09:08 EST 2010
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 19:55 +0100, Xyne wrote:
> On 2010-12-05 12:20 -0500 (48:7)
> Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Sun 05 Dec 2010 11:53 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Shacristo <shacristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy at gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > One of the stated purposes of the quorum is to "ensure that TUs remain
> > > > active in the job that they have taken on." Allowing circumvention of
> > > > the quorum requirements will obviously undermine that.
> > >
> > > TU's have a lot of different responsibilities. Prolonging a decided vote by
> > > six days to motivate or ensure that someone is active does not make sense to
> > > me. --Kaiting.
> > I would propose shortening the voting period then. I kind of like how
> > the system is set up (not perfectly though) to remove the inactive TUs
> > semi-automatically.
> I've copied my reply to another thread below for reference so you
> don't have to search for it (I tend to reply to messages as I read
> them instead of scanning everything first).
> After thinking about this more, I propose the following:
> The voting period should remain 7 days regardless of the current votes. It is
> rude to others to exclude them from participation even if the outcome is
> Once the voting period is over, the motion shall pass if either an absolute
> majority were reached, or if a simple majority were reached with quorum.
> This will allow all TUs to have their say if they so choose and it sidesteps
> the issue of determining inactivity due to shortened voting periods while
> preventing motions with absolute (i.e. insurmountable) majorities from
> failing, which is what the real issue is here. Overall I think this is the
> simplest solution.
I like this solution.
More information about the aur-general