[aur-general] TU Bylaws amendment proposal

Thorsten Töpper atsutane at freethoughts.de
Wed Sep 1 14:47:38 EDT 2010

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 19:09:38 +0100
Peter Lewis <pete at muddygoat.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 September 2010 at 08:38 Xyne wrote:
> > You have misunderstood my proposal. The phrase "active throughout
> > both the discussion period and the voting period" is not the same
> > as "active".
> On Wednesday 01 September 2010 at 18:37 Eric Bélanger wrote:
> > If your intention is to allow new TUs to vote but not have the
> > quorum affected if they don't, you should modify your amendment
> > (feel free to rephrase):
> > 
> > "If a TU is added to the group or declare himself as active during a
> > discussion/voting period, then this TU is allowed to participate in
> > the vote at his discretion.  He is only counted in the quorum
> > calculation if he has voted."
> I think this is basically the right idea (and I'm also not a TU but)
> I personally think it would get confusing if the quorum varies. In
> the interests of simplicity, clarity and fairness, my view would be
> that a quorum should be fixed for the lifetime of a vote, so that
> everyone participating knows.
> This could be done either a) including the new TUs or b) excluding
> them (though they would still be eligible to vote). I would argue for
> (b), since this way new TUs missing a vote by days, hours or minutes
> after their own election don't affect the quorum.
> Perhaps a simpler alternative would be to add to Xyne's original
> wording (which is very clear):
> > Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences
> > with a discussion period of 5 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting
> > period of 7 days. The quorum is counted among TUs who are active
> > throughout both the discussion period and the voting period.
> Adding:
> > This is only used to calculate quorum and does not prevent any TU
> > from voting.
> HTH,
> Pete.

Another wording which I find easier to understand would be a
modification of the new sentence introduced by Xyne from:
"The quorum is counted among TUs who are active throughout both the
discussion period and the voting period."

"The quorum is counted among TUs who are active at the point of time
the voting is started at the AUR but every TU is allowed to vote."

The timestamp is a fixed value at the database that everyone of us TUs
can see and check against the Wikipage, the previous formulation can
be misinterpreted for TUs that become inactive two days before the
vote ends but already participated or Tus who come back from holidays
one day after the discussion started(most abstruse cases that came to
my mind). It has obviously the same problem that quorum above 100% is
possible, however I don't see a problem with that, as I agree with Xyne
that the people that become TUs are following the list and the
applications of other people as we probably talk to them if we are not
sure how we shall vote for them and they have to show, that they are
willing to invest time into this.

Jabber: atsutane at freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/
Key: 295AFBF4     FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20100901/b9fa00ae/attachment.bin>

More information about the aur-general mailing list