[aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
plewis at aur.archlinux.org
Tue Dec 7 12:01:31 EST 2010
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
> > should state explicitly what is [only] allowed.)
> For now those are the only options available on the interface, so we don't
> need to consider anything else.
I agree. Let's say so then in the byelaws.
> Eventually "Standard Voting Procedure"
> could be changed to "Simple Voting Procedure" and another procedure could
> be introduced for anything beyond an accept/reject motion.
> > In answer to your "normally" point, perhaps:
> > "The duration of the voting period shall be 7 days unless determined
> > otherwise according to the nature of the proposal and as described
> > elsewhere in the bylaws."
> I tried to find a natural-sounding formulation using "unless" too but
> couldn't. I think it's because I already had "... nature of the
> proposal..." in my head. I agree with the use of "unless" but not the
> proposed statement.
> I've used "UNLESS otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to
> the proposal." in the updated version below.
Oops, I just saw you replied again... will reply to that...
More information about the aur-general