On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 03:01:51 -0500 Kaiting Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Ionuț Bîru <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates > > from the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. > > Because of that i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days > > voting. > > > > Please discuss the motion(really discuss and not like in > > previous,couples of hours and the next days arguing about bylaws) > > > > There's really not a whole lot to discuss here unless someone has some > inside information on Ranguvar. It seems to me as if this falls under > the domain of unwarranted and undeclared inactivity which is > sufficient cause for removal as well as the "rule of thumb" offered > in the bylaws regarding a maximum two month length of inactivity > before a Trusted User is expected to step down. I assume that this > motion is for inactivity_removal_of_TU and not general_removal_of_TU > so that the discussion period should last for three days and the > voting period for five with a sixty six percent quorum? -Kaiting. >
So yes this one goes for three days, so tommorrow it ends, the first take was simply cancelled. So why the big mess? If someone has been inactive for more than two months, it is no matter at all if there are a few more days or not. Yes I agree with removing him, but I don't see any real sense behind your argumentation about changing the bylaws. -- Jabber: [email protected] Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
