[aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period

[Loui Chang]

On Thu 16 Dec 2010 01:32 +0100, Xyne wrote:
> Ronald van Haren wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ray Rashif <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sun 12 Dec 2010 04:21 +0100, Xyne wrote:
> > >>> The following is a proposed replacement for the current SVP
> > >>> section of the TU bylaws:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendment&oldid=124557
> > >>>
> > >>> The changes address several issues recently brought up on this
> > >>> list. Briefly, these include:
> > >>> * enabling a vote to pass in the absence of quorum when more
> > >>> than 50% of active   TUs have voted YES
> > >>> * enabling a vote to fail in the absence of quorum when 50% or
> > >>> more of active   TUs have voted NO
> > >>> * clarifying the text to eliminate ambiguities
> > >>>
> > >>> Please see Kaiting's "[aur-general]Amendment" thread and Loui's
> > >>> "[aur-general][PATCH]tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure"
> > >>> thread for more details.
> > >>>
> > >>> This message marks the beginning of the 5-day discussion period
> > >>> before the amendment is put to a vote.
> > >>
> > >> Can we get that as a patch so I may apply it to the hosted version if
> > >> the vote passes? The content should probably be on the mailing list as
> > >> well.
> > >
> > > We can compare-and-contrast better looking at a patch, so +1 to that.
> > 
> > yes, please provide a patch.
> 
> In the time that it would take me to find sources and create a patch
> you could have easily provided one from the submitted text. If someone
> wants to point me to the relative source and describe the preferred
> format of the patch then I will waste some of my time to create it,
> but I will tell you now that I think the request itself is a bit
> ridiculous. It's plain text.

Just make a copy of the bylaws html file, alter it, and make a diff.
It isn't a ridiculous request because people may not be clear on what
text is being removed or added, so you should make such changes
unambiguous with a patch. The bylaws also call for a patch for any
amendment.