[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes
Rashif Ray Rahman
schiv at archlinux.org
Tue Aug 6 16:54:41 EDT 2013
On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
>> <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>> >> On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
>> > Any other opinions?
>> Yes, we should drop completely the active statement.
This requires a separate proposal.
>> This will simplify computation and restore the purpose of the quorum!
>> "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally
>> unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small
>> number of persons."
>> (c) Wikipedia
>> If you think the quorum is too high, it's better to reduce it (or remove it).
>> Currently it's 66%, that means 33% of voters can be in holidays, in
>> hospital, in travels and don't have in a 2 weeks time frame a way to
>> read some mails and vote.
>> In absolute it means : 12 TUs on 36 doesn't have time to vote.
>> So, to take a decision we need at least 13 voters ((36-12)/2+1) on 36 TUs.
>> That means we need a bit more than 33% of the total TUs to have a
>> motion pass. I'm not sure it's necessary to change this.
>> What you suggest is automatic hijacking of the quorum, in purpose to
>> reducing the number of voters.
>> With the new system, we can have a motion pass with 1 voters if every
>> TU goes a the next fosdem :)
> I didn't think of it like that but I tend to agree now... Does anybody
+0 The hypothetical one-TU-rules-all case has been brought up before,
but I can't cite any discussion or conclusion.
> Anyway, we still need to find a way to count the total number of TUs.
> That number needs to be recorded at some point of time during the vote.
The total number of TUs is a recorded statistic in the AUR, AFAICS. Or
are you referring to something else?
> * Record at the beginning, do not update if new TUs appear.
> * Record at the beginning, fix if TUs are added/removed during the SVP.
> * Record at the beginning, exclude new TUs from running votes.
> * Record at the end.
> The first and last option might yield bogus results. If there this one
> TU when the SVP starts and another one is added during the SVP, there
> might be a quorum of 2 / 1 = 200%. Same if the number is recorded at the
> end and a TU is removed during the SVP.
> The second option means that we record the total number of users that
> have had TU status at some point of time during the voting period.
By "new" and "added", do you mean newly appointed, or newly active?
This is an important distinction. If we're still talking about
active/inactive and this proposal:
* Record active at start, add newly active, ignore newly inactive,
ignore newly added, ignore newly removed
> What do you think?
I think we need more opinions. Xyne? Anyway, if anyone's looking for
some bylaw amendment history:
>> Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
>> GPG: 0x2072D77A
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
More information about the aur-general