[aur-general] [PATCH] tu-bylaws: Amend Standard Voting Procedure
plewis at aur.archlinux.org
Wed Dec 8 08:03:29 EST 2010
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 12:04:22 Ronald van Haren wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Peter Lewis <plewis at aur.archlinux.org>
> > 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?
Indeed, there are always these questions :-)
And maybe this isn't clear, but "substantive" is a little different from
"substantial". It basically means that there needs to be a difference of value
between the two proposals. I.e. the implication of accepting the second rather
than the first would be, at least in some small way, different.
That's my feeling, anyway.
More information about the aur-general