[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?

[Peter Lewis]

On Sunday 05 December 2010 23:14:14 Loui Chang wrote:
> 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
> balance.

Yeah, that's fine, I don't feel strongly about how we implement quorum, I just 
think it should be consistent and encourage everyone to vote.

Incidentally, what did you mean by "achieve a better balance"?

I also replied to this before seeing the other thread... will head over there 
now... <whistles>