voting member requirements

[shaeespring]

• voting member requirements

Check one:

• Semantic Change: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Change: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of change(s):

Eligible Votes contains a reference to Voting Member Requirements (gatekeep)
The wording of Section 5.B.4 removes the Eligible Votes, and includes Voting Eboard Members

[Qelxiros]

@rhochgraf21 this changes some vote-related wording, so you might want to look at it and make sure it's still coherent.

[rhochgraf21]

a few thoughts & wording proposals

[rhochgraf21]

This particular phrasing strikes me as complex. Maybe we can split it in two for readability? Perhaps something like...

The number of Active Members who are eligible to vote on the issue.
Following the first Intro Eval of an academic year, Active Members are only eligible to vote if they have completed the qualifications listed in \ref{Expectations of Voting Members}.

perhaps?

--

Other thoughts:

• there's an unfortunate edge case for E-Board members possibly not being able to vote on E-Board issues, it seems. (double-check me on this, but this doesn't seem apply to RTPs due to the way quorum is specified there.)
• potential fix for this edge case: 7.B.2.D [...] Unless otherwise specified, E-Board votes are Immediate Relative Majority Votes with a fifty percent quorum [+ of Voting E-Board Members.]. That said, this feels like a patch rather than fixing the underlying issue (b/c it seems to require specifying group after every quorum statement for officers.)
• proposal for fixing underlying issue: [+Officers of CSH retain voting eligibility on all matters directly pertaining to the duties of their held office regardless of \ref{Expectations of Voting Members}.]

[rhochgraf21]

Oh, this might be something to consider, hmm.

4.B.4.A Expectations of Voting Members is phrased as all "during the Intro Process."

So if a member does not complete the requirements during the Intro Process, but completes them later, they do not regain the right to vote.

[shaeespring]

I'd rather use the last recommendation to fix the issue. It makes the most sense.

[shaeespring]

I think it should be discussed whether we want to have eligible votes reset at the beginning of the second semester (this is terrible wording, but to proffer: do we want the requirements to need fulfilled again for the second semester?). That was my original thought, but I think your suggestion of the first Intro Eval of the academic year may be sufficient.

[Qelxiros]

If we have it reset, we should make sure we're correctly handling the case where we have a second Intro Eval process in a given semester.

If we don't have it reset, I think there should be a grace period (the first six weeks of the second semester) during which active members who were inactive during the previous semester (co-op or otherwise) can vote without meeting requirements. That might be controversial, and there will almost certainly be contention around the exact implementation of that sentiment, so I'll leave that up to you.