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

Peter Lewis plewis at aur.archlinux.org
Wed Dec 8 09:08:07 EST 2010

On Wednesday 08 December 2010 13:34:53 Ronald van Haren wrote:
> >> 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.
> 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.

Sure - I'm all for easily understandable, as long as we're also precise :-)

I suppose what I'm after is that the effect of the two proposals must be in 
some way different. It's not enough just to reword the same thing. So how 

"A rejected proposal may not be presented again before a waiting period has 
passed. The duration of the waiting period shall be 3 full months UNLESS 
otherwise stated in a section of the bylaws pertaining to the proposal. The 
waiting period begins at the end of the voting period. A proposal which is 
similar to the rejected proposal, but whose effect is in any way different is 
considered a different proposal, and therefore does not require a waiting 
period before being presented."


More information about the aur-general mailing list