Xyne wrote:
> Well, the English language disagrees with you and so does my spell-checker. :P
I retract that statement. Only my spell-checker disagrees. I thought I had
checked it online but now I see that multiple variants are acceptable: bylaw,
by-law, byelaw, bye-law.
Apparently my email spell
Kaiting Chen wrote:
> I'm nitpicking here because we're pretty much at the final edit: Why do we
> have this redundant construct? "aur-general mailing list (aur-general)".
"aur-general" is an abbreviation of "the aur-general mailing list". I
originally wrote something along the lines of "hereafte
On Thursday 09 December 2010 00:45:33 Loui Chang wrote:
> On Wed 08 Dec 2010 11:59 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Xyne wrote:
> > > Let's wait another day to get some more comments and incorporate any
> > > last changes. If it changes during the discussion period w
On Thursday 09 December 2010 00:42:20 Loui Chang wrote:
> > I've removed that passage, changed "bylaws" to "by-laws", and changed
> > "YES / NO" to "YES or NO".
>
> I would prefer the non hyphenated spelling. *shrug*
:-)
...and every time I've come across the word it's had an e in it: byelaw.
*
On Wed 08 Dec 2010 11:59 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Xyne wrote:
>
> > Let's wait another day to get some more comments and incorporate any
> > last changes. If it changes during the discussion period without
> > unanimous consent then we would end up in a grey a
On Wed 08 Dec 2010 16:23 +0100, Xyne wrote:
> I think the passage concerning "similar" proposals is too vague. There
> is no way to define those terms in a way that is unambiguous in all
> cases and trying to do so is futile and condemned to a pedantic
> spiral.
>
> I trust the human factor to han
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Xyne wrote:
> Let's wait another day to get some more comments and incorporate any last
> changes. If it changes during the discussion period without unanimous
> consent
> then we would end up in a grey area when deciding which version to vote on
> (and
> we're li
Peter Lewis wrote:
> Okay, I don't intend to push this. I just think it would be nice to avoid any
> ambiguity where someone says that we have to wait 3 months e.g. to amend
> quorum, since a proposal to do that just failed, even though the second
> proposal might be slightly different.
I shar
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 15:23:01 Xyne wrote:
> I think the passage concerning "similar" proposals is too vague. There is
> no way to define those terms in a way that is unambiguous in all cases and
> trying to do so is futile and condemned to a pedantic spiral.
>
> I trust the human factor t
On 2010-12-08 09:36 + (49:3)
Peter Lewis wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 December 2010 01:51:52 Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > > As soon as I get back from lab I'm going to put the text up on a wiki
> > > page so we can stop doing massive amounts of s
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 13:34:53 Ronald van Haren wrote:
> >> and who determines if there is a substantial difference between the
> >> two votes (I'm talking about edge cases here)? And what exactly is
> >> this substantial difference that is required, how do we quantify it?
> >
> > Indeed,
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Peter Lewis wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 December 2010 12:04:22 Ronald van Haren wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Peter Lewis
> wrote:
>> > While reading this, one more small thing came to mind: I wonder if we
>> > should make it clear that though *the same* p
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 12:04:22 Ronald van Haren wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Peter Lewis
wrote:
> > While reading this, one more small thing came to mind: I wonder if we
> > should make it clear that though *the same* proposal requires a waiting
> > period, slightly different
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Peter Lewis wrote:
> While reading this, one more small thing came to mind: I wonder if we should
> make it clear that though *the same* proposal requires a waiting period,
> slightly different ones don't. An example of this might be the approval of
> these very bye
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 01:51:52 Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > As soon as I get back from lab I'm going to put the text up on a wiki
> > page so we can stop doing massive amounts of scrolling... --Kaiting.
>
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 04:33:09 Loui Chang wrote:
> > Yeah, I don't have any better suggestion really, and apart from my
> > general dislike for using whitespace to provide meaning (a la python)
> > it's pretty clear to me.
>
> I do like to separate words by a space and paragraphs by a blan
On Tue 07 Dec 2010 20:27 +, Peter Lewis wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 December 2010 19:02:59 Xyne wrote:
> > Peter Lewis wrote:
> > > This means that we cannot override (A) in the rest of the byelaws. I can
> > > imagine that we might want to create something requiring (say) a 2/3rds
> >
> > > majori
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> As soon as I get back from lab I'm going to put the text up on a wiki page
> so we can stop doing massive amounts of scrolling... --Kaiting.
>
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bylaw_Amendment
Done, Xyne's latest version can be found at a
As soon as I get back from lab I'm going to put the text up on a wiki page
so we can stop doing massive amounts of scrolling... --Kaiting.
--
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 19:02:59 Xyne wrote:
> Peter Lewis wrote:
> > This means that we cannot override (A) in the rest of the byelaws. I can
> > imagine that we might want to create something requiring (say) a 2/3rds
>
> > majority for some type of serious proposal at some point... How about
Peter Lewis wrote:
> This means that we cannot override (A) in the rest of the byelaws. I can
> imagine that we might want to create something requiring (say) a 2/3rds
> majority for some type of serious proposal at some point... How about:
>
/snip
>
> Just more thoughts, trying to spot loophol
Hang on, I just went through this again:
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 16:58:49 Xyne wrote:
> Third version:
>
> Standard Voting Procedure (SVP) describes the formal procedure used by TUs
> to accept or reject proposals regarding TU affairs.
>
> SVP begins with a proposal, for example the addition
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 16:58:49 Xyne wrote:
> Third version:
>
> Standard Voting Procedure (SVP) describes the formal procedure used by TUs
> to accept or reject proposals regarding TU affairs.
>
> SVP begins with a proposal, for example the addition of a TU or an
> amendment to the bylaws.
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 16:44:36 Xyne wrote:
> Peter Lewis wrote:
> > Do we require that a proposal has only "yes" and "no" as options, as well
> > as "abstain"? Could a proposal present a list of options? How would this
> > affect the voting, or should it not be allowed? (If not, I think we
>
I've tried to remove further ambiguity from the sections about quorum,
acceptance and rejection. I've also reformulated the first case in the
rejection section to use similar wording to the acceptance section.
Third version:
Standard Voting Procedure (SVP) describes the formal procedure used
Peter Lewis wrote:
> Do we require that a proposal has only "yes" and "no" as options, as well as
> "abstain"? Could a proposal present a list of options? How would this affect
> the voting, or should it not be allowed? (If not, I think we should state
> explicitly what is [only] allowed.)
For
Hey,
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 15:37:41 Xyne wrote:
> I've rewritten that section with some changes (see below). I've tried to
> keep the wording unambiguous and relatively simple. Note the following
> functional changes:
>
> * If 50% or more of all active TUs vote NO then the vote is rejected
Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > Wow. I didn't think it was that bad.
> >
>
> The wording could use some work. The biggest question I've been getting is
> "how long is the discussion period between the first and second vote if the
> quorum fails?". The answer is of course zero, but apparently this is very
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > I sent the proposed patch to some people who deal with this kind of thing
> > and most of them were confused until I explained it thoroughly. I'm
> waiting
> > to hear their suggestions. --Kaiting.
>
> Wow. I didn't think it was that bad.
>
On Mon 06 Dec 2010 23:42 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
>
> > > I've read through this a couple more times and I'm little concerned about
> > > the particular wording. Unfortunately I don't know how to make this any
> > > clearer so I guess I'll sh
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> > I've read through this a couple more times and I'm little concerned about
> > the particular wording. Unfortunately I don't know how to make this any
> > clearer so I guess I'll shut up...
>
> Honestly, I wouldn't mind hearing your concerns.
On Mon 06 Dec 2010 23:08 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Thorsten Töpper
> wrote:
>
> > So far it is mostly fine for me, however from this paragraph it is not
> > clear if the vote is still open when the quorum was reached and the
> > application passed. In my opinion
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Thorsten Töpper
wrote:
> So far it is mostly fine for me, however from this paragraph it is not
> clear if the vote is still open when the quorum was reached and the
> application passed. In my opinion it should be, so everyone has the
> chance to do a vote and exp
On Mon 06 Dec 2010 17:31 +0100, Thorsten Töpper wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:13:55 -0500 Loui Chang
> wrote:
> > This proposal clarifies the Standard Voting Procedure, and allows
> > another condition for passing a motion.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
> > ---
> > TUbylaws.html | 13 ++
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:13:55 -0500 Loui Chang
wrote:
> This proposal clarifies the Standard Voting Procedure, and allows
> another condition for passing a motion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
> ---
> TUbylaws.html | 13 -
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> di
Hi,
This looks good to me, and seems clearer. One minor suggestion:
On Sunday 05 December 2010 21:13:55 Loui Chang wrote:
> At the expiration of the voting period, if a quorum was reached,
> votes are to be tallied.
> -A simple majority is needed to pass or reject the motion. In the event
> -o
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 16:19 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
>
> > This proposal clarifies the Standard Voting Procedure, and allows
> > another condition for passing a motion.
> >
> >
> >Trusted Users
> > @@ -79,9
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
> This proposal clarifies the Standard Voting Procedure, and allows
> another condition for passing a motion.
>
>
>Trusted Users
> @@ -79,9 +79,12 @@
>
>
>At t
This proposal clarifies the Standard Voting Procedure, and allows
another condition for passing a motion.
Signed-off-by: Loui Chang
---
TUbylaws.html | 13 -
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/TUbylaws.html b/TUbylaws.html
index 2c4b854..a3fa84d 100644
-
39 matches
Mail list logo
