On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Thorsten Töpper <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:26:45 -0500 Shacristo <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm not TU, but I have a few suggestions for cleaning up the bylaws. >> >> Standard Voting Procedure: >> I think it would help to standardize the discussion and/or voting >> period time lengths. I don't see anything that would be particularly >> time sensitive, so I think both periods could be changed to 7 days for >> all motions. At the very least the voting periods could all be 7 days >> since the only motion that doesn't have a 7 day voting period is the >> motion to remove an inactive TU and I don't think there's any reason >> to rush that. > > I see the current time values fine, one week to think about a person > that will gain some serious influence on the user base(AUR). Also one > week to think about the removal of someone who left a good impression. > Also 3 days of discussion and 5 for the vote are fine, not everyone > votes at the first day of the period and so the one person still has a > chance to say "Hey sorry there was xyz.".
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the current time values, I just think it would make the rules clearer if they were more consistent. >> Right now 'no' and 'abstain' votes appear to be treated exactly the >> same. The abstain option should either be removed or it should be >> made clear that it is only used for purposes of achieving a quorum. > > No that is a bad idea. I myself abstained two votes simply because > someone was not really convincing at that time but there also was no > real thing to say that he would not do fine later. It helps to get the > quorum as everyone who feels like that can do so, also it has no > influence if the applicant becomes accepted or not as No still can > reach more votes than Yes and vice versa. What I was saying is that with the current phrasing it is not entirely clear what is required to pass a motion. "A simple majority is needed to pass or reject the motion." If that is taken to mean 51% of all votes then 'abstain' and 'no' are essentially equal and 'abstain' is unnecessary. If that's 51% of non-abstaining votes, which I believe is how most people are interpreting it, then I just think that needs to made more clear. >> Quorum: >> It isn't clear how a TU that changes his/her status during a vote >> would be counted for the quorum. I would suggest saying that any >> non-voting TU that was inactive for any period during the discussion >> or voting periods should not be counted for the quorum. > > "All active TUs should be participating in discussions and voting > procedures in order to continue meeting the quorums." > > In other words: TUs marked as inactive on the list are not counted in > at all. Again, there are situations where that language becomes ambiguous. If an inactive TU becomes active again on day 5 of a 7 day vote is he counted towards thw quorum or even allowed to vote? I wasn't suggesting that inactive TU's be allowed to vote.
