[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes
seblu at seblu.net
Wed Aug 7 10:37:05 EDT 2013
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Lukas Fleischer
<archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:54:41AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>> 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:
> The total number of TUs isn't fixed. It changes from time to time and it
> might change during a SVP. I agree that it is a rare case but why not
> find a proper way to handle that while we're talking about it...
I do support finding a proper way to have this case handled.
Between the 4 proposals, I see the 3rd as the best.
Although, the discussion is public and everybody can argue, the number
of voters should be finite and known at the beginning.
It also simplify the vote, by having a list of allowed voters.
Reading again the bylaws, I feel that we miss an important point.
The SVP starts when the proposal is sent to aur-general.
So to continue on the idea of the point 3, should we consider the
begging of the SVP (and choosing the allowed voters)
at this time or when the vote is registered in AUR?
Maybe we can automate the mail sending when creating the proposal?
This would enforce all deadlines and respect of the discuss and voting time.
>> I think we need more opinions. Xyne? Anyway, if anyone's looking for
>> some bylaw amendment history:
Thanks for the references. The last one is an advanced hijack of the quorum.
The question we have to answer is : How many TU are necessary to have
a motion pass.
Set the quorum to this value and _stop_ cheating by :
- creating more valid voters than others (the active)
- find ways to ignore the quorum is not reach (so the vote has no meaning)
Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
More information about the aur-general