[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?

Loui Chang louipc.ist at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 18:14:14 EST 2010

On Sun 05 Dec 2010 22:52 +0000, Peter Lewis wrote:
> 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.

Well, we don't need to get rid of quorum. We can just raise the needed
quorum for the different type of motions which may achieve a better

More information about the aur-general mailing list