[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

[Lukas Fleischer]

On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:54:41AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
> >> <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> >> >> On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Any other opinions?
> >> Yes, we should drop completely the active statement.
> 
> This requires a separate proposal.

Of course. We are just trying to make sure nobody raises immediate
objections before submitting a new patch and restarting the whole
discussion process. I will resubmit a new proposal tomorrow.

> [...]
> > I didn't think of it like that but I tend to agree now... Does anybody
> > disagree?
> 
> +0 The hypothetical one-TU-rules-all case has been brought up before,
> but I can't cite any discussion or conclusion.

It is not just the one-TU-rules-all case. As Sébastien already
mentioned, establishing a quorum means that the result is representative
among all eligible voters. It doesn't just mean that enough TUs who
happen to be online at the right time care.

> 
> > Anyway, we still need to find a way to count the total number of TUs.
> > That number needs to be recorded at some point of time during the vote.
> 
> The total number of TUs is a recorded statistic in the AUR, AFAICS. Or
> are you referring to something else?

The total number of TUs isn't fixed. It changes from time to time and it
might change during a SVP. I agree that it is a rare case but why not
find a proper way to handle that while we're talking about it...

> [...]
> * Record active at start, add newly active, ignore newly inactive,
> ignore newly added, ignore newly removed

So we're ignoring the fact that adding/removing a TU during the SVP
distorts the results? Because it is a corner case?

> 
> > What do you think?
> 
> I think we need more opinions. Xyne? Anyway, if anyone's looking for
> some bylaw amendment history:

Agreed. Added Xyne to Cc.

> 
> https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-December/000127.html
> https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012196.html
> https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012534.html
> [...]