[aur-general] Non-native English speakers and the AUR by-laws [WAS: removal proposal for Ranguvar]

[Stefan Husmann]

Am 05.12.2010 21:37, schrieb Xyne:
> Loui Chang wrote:
> 
>> On Sun 05 Dec 2010 13:47 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, PyroPeter <abi1789 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/05/2010 03:11 AM, Xyne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm halfway tempted to create the flowchart but I just don't have the
>>>>> time. If
>>>>> someone wants to adapt the dot file from the Arch Linux Help Guide
>>>>> Flowchart,
>>>>> feel free:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://xyne.archlinux.ca/miscellaneous/#the-arch-linux-help-guide-flowchart
>>>>>
>>>>> Make sure that "Blame Allan" is in there somewhere (Was quorum reached?
>>>>> --no-->
>>>>> Blame Allan -->  etc)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I created a flowchart about the Standard Voting Procedure [1], but I had
>>>> problems understanding this bit:
>>>>
>>>>> A simple majority is needed to pass or reject the motion. In the
>>>>> event of a draw, being that 50% is not a majority, the motion does
>>>>> not pass.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't "reject" the same as "does not pass"?
>>>> And what means "being that 50% is not a majority"? (50% of what?)
>>>>
>>>> As I showed in the graph, I understood the quoted text as follows:
>>>>
>>>>> If more than 50% of the votes cast for YES, the motion passes,
>>>>> if not, it is rejected.
>>>
>>> That's the correct interpretation. A simple majority requires *greater* than
>>> 50% of the votes cast which is what the part up above was trying to express.
>>
>> "Did more than 50% of the votes cast for YES?"
>> should be changed to:
>> "Are the number of YES votes greater than the number of NO votes?"
>>
>> Remember abstained votes don't count as votes.
> 
> I've never read it that way. If "abstain" counts towards the quorum then it
> counts towards the total number of votes. A simple majority must therefore be
> more than half of all the votes, i.e. > 1/2 * (yes + no + abstain).
> 
> If it wasn't that way then 1 person could vote yes and everyone else could
> abstain yet the motion would still pass. I think a greater show of confidence
> than 1 "yes" vote should be required before giving someone access to [community]
> and the AUR.
> 
> Basically, a TU application should be accepted base on a threshold level of
> confidence, not an absence of opposition. Requiring a simple majority of those
> who participate in the vote achieves that.
> 
> Regardless, it's clear that the bylaws need to be amended.
> 
I always read it the way Loui stated. Anything else does not make sense to me. 
If it were to be read in the way you described it, abstains really were the 
same as no-votes. 

And I have no problem with your example. In practice, this will not happen. At 
least it did not happen anything similar in the past. In theory, if we have one 
yes-vote, no no-vote and a bunch of abstains, say 2/3 of the number of TUs, the 
vote is valid to me, because the quorum is met and no-one is _against_ the 
proposal. We should consider abstains as something neutral, not something 
negative.

Regards Stefan