[aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
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.
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
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. Other than that it looks good to me.
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
On 12/11/10 22:21, Xyne wrote: 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 "clarifying" here includes deciding that "abstain" has a different effect than "no" has. This is slightly beyond a clarification from the previous bylaw text. So I mention it. -Isaac
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang 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.
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ray Rashif wrote: > On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang 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
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
Ronald van Haren wrote: > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ray Rashif wrote: > > On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang 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*
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
On Thu 16 Dec 2010 01:32 +0100, Xyne wrote: > Ronald van Haren wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Ray Rashif wrote: > > > On 12 December 2010 11:39, Loui Chang 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. > > 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. Just make a copy of the bylaws html file, alter it, and make a diff. It isn't a ridiculous request because people may not be clear on what text is being removed or added, so you should make such changes unambiguous with a patch. The bylaws also call for a patch for any amendment.
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
Loui Chang wrote: > Just make a copy of the bylaws html file, alter it, and make a diff. > It isn't a ridiculous request because people may not be clear on what > text is being removed or added, so you should make such changes > unambiguous with a patch. The bylaws also call for a patch for any > amendment. http://aur.pastebin.com/AUvnYAWn
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
On Sunday 12 December 2010 03:21:30 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. Are we voting on this then?
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:19:28 + Peter Lewis wrote: > On Sunday 12 December 2010 03:21:30 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. > > Are we voting on this then? I guess we should, let's vote for another one to agree before starting one and do a mistake with that ;-) -- Jabber: atsut...@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:23:40 +0100 Thorsten Töpper wrote: > I guess we should, let's vote for another one to agree before starting > one and do a mistake with that ;-) Don't do anything else when typing a mail... We should wait for another TU to agree with that, not vote for another one... -- Jabber: atsut...@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [aur-general] TU Bylaws Amendment (SVP Section): Discussion Period
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Thorsten Töpper wrote: > Don't do anything else when typing a mail... > We should wait for another TU to agree with that, not vote for another > one... > We should probably go ahead and vote to get this taken care of. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
