[aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
Ronald van Haren
pressh at gmail.com
Wed Dec 8 07:04:22 EST 2010
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?
More information about the aur-general