[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?

[Peter Lewis]

On Sunday 05 December 2010 09:21:00 Christopher Brannon wrote:
> Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy at gmail.com> writes:
> > 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*.
> 
> Yes, and this would be behavior befitting an asshat.
> The bylaws implicitly assume that we're dealing with intelligent,
> cooperative, emotionally mature people.  This assumption seems valid to me.
> 
> Perhaps a quorum should be unnecessary when a clear majority of all TUs
> have voted for or against a given proposal.  17 of 30 constitute a clear
> majority.  Would this be a reasonable amendment to the bylaws?  If so,
> I'll propose it.

I'd support some kind of reworking of the quorum for TU votes, since as 
Kaitling points out, missing a meeting due to weather, car problems, etc. 
doesn't really apply (though a reasonable equivalent might be that someone's 
Internet connection goes down for a few days without warning.)

It seems to me that if we are to basically expect that all TUs engage in all 
votes, then the assumption is that a fully constituted vote is everyone, not 
66%. Therefore, a majority should be counted as a majority of all TUs, not 
just of those voting.

We'd have to ensure though, I think, that a TU that didn't vote on more than n 
(consecutive?) occasions (possibly with the addition of them not giving a 
reason for this) triggers a removal process automatically.

But, I'd be a little hesitant about having more complex quorum rules (i.e. 
exactly as Chris suggested). We should probably either get rid of it (in 
favour of the above higher expectation of participation) or else leave it as 
it is.

Pete.