[aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure

Mon Dec 6 20:44:09 EST 2010

On Mon 06 Dec 2010 17:31 +0100, Thorsten Töpper wrote:
> On Sun,  5 Dec 2010 16:13:55 -0500 Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > This proposal clarifies the Standard Voting Procedure, and allows
> > another condition for passing a motion.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  TUbylaws.html |   13 ++++++++-----
> >  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/TUbylaws.html b/TUbylaws.html
> > index 2c4b854..a3fa84d 100644
> > --- a/TUbylaws.html
> > +++ b/TUbylaws.html
> > @@ -10,8 +10,8 @@
> >  	</head><body>
> >  		<h1>Trusted User Bylaws</h1>
> >  		
> > -		<div class="date">May 21, 2008</div>
> > -		<div class="version">1.1</div>
> > +		<div class="date">2010-12-05</div>
> > +		<div class="version">1.2</div>
> >  		
> >  		<address>
> >  			Trusted Users
> > @@ -79,9 +79,12 @@
> >  			<br><br>
> >  
> >  			At the expiration of the voting period, if a
> > quorum was reached, votes are to be tallied.
> > -			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. In the event that a quorum was not
> > -			reached, a duplicate voting period opens
> > immediately after the first ends, all previous votes are
> > +			The motion is passed if quorum is reached
> > and the number of YES votes is greater than the number of NO votes.
> > +			The motion is also passed if quorum is not
> > reached but the number of YES votes exceeds fifty percent of the
> > number of active Trusted Users.
> > +			The motion is rejected if quorum is reached
> > and the number of NO votes is greater or equal to the number of YES
> > votes. +
> > +			In the event that a quorum was not reached
> > and the motion is not passed,
> > +			a duplicate voting period opens immediately
> > after the first ends, all previous votes are struck from the record,
> > and the voting period is repeated. If quorum cannot be reached for
> > two consecutive voting periods, the motion fails to pass.<br><br> 
> 
> So far it is mostly fine for me, however from this paragraph it is not
> clear if the vote is still open when the quorum was reached and the
> application passed. In my opinion it should be, so everyone has the
> chance to do a vote and express his way though it doesn't matter.
> (Yes it does not make any formal sense, however I think about human
> emotions that it's better to do so, so no one feels to be excluded
> just as the vote is another in a row where he/she could not
> participate. In other words: Kaiting that was what I meant yesterday.)
> 
> Also I'd say to keep the old date format as it is really clear how it
> has to be read, I'm not aware of every date format around the world
> but I have the feeling that this one could be misread as May 12, 2010...

Those changes do not alter the voting period in any way. So the voting
period would still run for the same amount of time. Good point about the
date.