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

Ronald van Haren pressh at gmail.com
Wed Dec 8 08:34:53 EST 2010

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Peter Lewis <plewis at aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
> 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>
> 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?
> 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.
> Pete.

I'm not a native speaker, but I always thought they could be used
interchangeably. Actually most of the on-line dictionaries don't give
a clear answer about the difference. Either way, we should probably
try to use a different wording if the purpose is to make the document
more understandable.


More information about the aur-general mailing list