[aur-general] discussion about activity

Sam Stuewe halosghost at archlinux.info
Wed Aug 7 12:33:00 EDT 2013

On 2013-08-07 11:26, Daniel Micay wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Lukas Fleischer
> <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +0000, Xyne wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I want to discuss our notions of "activity". According to the current 
>>> bylaws,
>>> [...]
>> This discussion starts to get messy. Now there are three different
>> threads discussing the same thing, basically. Could we please
>> concentrate on the current proposal and the related discussion before
>> initiating a new one?
>> Also, you still didn't comment on the suggestion to remove the 
>> activity
>> part from the quorum computation altogether. Please read Sébastien's
>> reply (and follow-ups) to my proposal. The quorum is meant to ensure
>> that a result is representative. If 60% of all TUs are inactive, we 
>> can
>> currently establish a quorum of 100%. This does not seem right to me.
>> Also, dropping the activity restriction makes things a lot easier, so
>> this gets a +2 from me...
> A simple majority of 51% isn't a consensus among the team, regardless
> of how many people voted. I don't think proposals should pass at all
> when nearly half of us object.
> Rather than the quorum, we could require a super-majority (60%, 70%)
> of the trusted users to vote YES and handle inactivity removals
> separately.
> If 8 people are on vacation, it's not a good time to be passing 
> proposals.
I'm (obviously) not a TU, so I know my thoughts probably don't count for 
much, but there is one thing I'd like to point out. Abstentions and 
non-votes are not the same as "no votes". Perhaps, instead of a super 
majority, requiring no less than a certain number of no votes would be a 
good idea. For instance, allowing 50%+1 to pass so long as there are no 
more than 33% would be a fairly functional model. The other possibility, 
of course, would be to define all non-votes and abstentions as "no" 
votes (save non-votes/abstentions by inactive TUs). This is a much 
stricter system but I don't believe accurately represents vote casts.

Again, my word probably doesn't mean that much, but I have some strong 
opinions about how voting should be done (student of political science), 
so I figured it might be worth throwing something out there.

All the best,


More information about the aur-general mailing list