[aur-general] Fix the Bylaws?
louipc.ist at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 18:47:07 EST 2010
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 23:23 +0000, Peter Lewis wrote:
> 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
> Incidentally, what did you mean by "achieve a better balance"?
A better balance of non voters vs voters, which really isn't something
that affects us as far as I can tell.
More information about the aur-general