[aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure

[Ronald van Haren]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Peter Lewis <plewis at aur.archlinux.org> 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 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.
>

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?

Ronald