[aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
plewis at aur.archlinux.org
Wed Dec 8 04:36:34 EST 2010
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 01:51:52 Kaiting Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy at gmail.com> 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.
> Done, Xyne's latest version can be found at above.
Nice, thanks Kaitling.
I also added my line about requiring a yes/no answer, hope that's okay. I know
this might seem pedantic, but I've been in situations where this wasn't
specified and suddenly a proposal had like 5 options and the voting system
broke. In effect, without this we rely only on the technical capabilities of
the system (under the control of a few people) and I think it's better to rely
on rules instead (under the control of all of us). We can always amend again
if the need for multiple choice proposals arises.
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 byelaws, where if they are voted down, a subsequent proposal might
be different by just a few words. We should probably be clear about that.
So I've added: "Proposals that are similar to the rejected proposal but
substantively different do not require a waiting period before being
presented." to the end of the waiting period paragraph.
Feel free to amend for wording :-)
I also think we should also tighten up the "Addition of a TU" wording, but
will write about that separately.
More information about the aur-general