[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?
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
> 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