Ronald van Haren wrote: > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ray Rashif <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun 12 Dec 2010 04:21 +0100, Xyne wrote: > >>> The following is a proposed replacement for the current SVP section of > >>> the TU > >>> bylaws: > >>> > >>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendment&oldid=124557 > >>> > >>> The changes address several issues recently brought up on this list. > >>> Briefly, > >>> these include: > >>> * enabling a vote to pass in the absence of quorum when more than 50% of > >>> active > >>> TUs have voted YES > >>> * enabling a vote to fail in the absence of quorum when 50% or more of > >>> active > >>> TUs have voted NO > >>> * clarifying the text to eliminate ambiguities > >>> > >>> Please see Kaiting's "[aur-general]Amendment" thread and Loui's > >>> "[aur-general][PATCH]tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure" thread > >>> for > >>> more details. > >>> > >>> This message marks the beginning of the 5-day discussion period before the > >>> amendment is put to a vote. > >> > >> Can we get that as a patch so I may apply it to the hosted version if > >> the vote passes? The content should probably be on the mailing list as > >> well. > > > > We can compare-and-contrast better looking at a patch, so +1 to that. > > > > yes, please provide a patch. > > Ronald
In the time that it would take me to find sources and create a patch you could have easily provided one from the submitted text. If someone wants to point me to the relative source and describe the preferred format of the patch then I will waste some of my time to create it, but I will tell you now that I think the request itself is a bit ridiculous. It's plain text. *sigh*
