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

Xyne xyne at archlinux.ca
Wed Dec 8 10:23:01 EST 2010

On 2010-12-08 09:36 +0000 (49:3)
Peter Lewis wrote:

> On Wednesday 08 December 2010 01:51:52 Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As soon as I get back from lab I'm going to put the text up on a wiki
> > > page so we can stop doing massive amounts of scrolling... --Kaiting.
> > 
> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bylaw_Amendment
> > 
> > Done, Xyne's latest version can be found at above.
> Nice, thanks Kaitling.
> I also added my line about requiring a yes/no answer, hope that's okay. I know 
> this might seem pedantic, but I've been in situations where this wasn't 
> specified and suddenly a proposal had like 5 options and the voting system 
> broke. In effect, without this we rely only on the technical capabilities of 
> the system (under the control of a few people) and I think it's better to rely 
> on rules instead (under the control of all of us). We can always amend again 
> if the need for multiple choice proposals arises.
> 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.
> Feel free to amend for wording :-)
> I also think we should also tighten up the "Addition of a TU" wording, but 
> will write about that separately.
> Pete.

I think the passage concerning "similar" proposals is too vague. There is no
way to define those terms in a way that is unambiguous in all cases and trying
to do so is futile and condemned to a pedantic spiral.

I trust the human factor to handle those cases. People will be able to
determine whether it's the same proposal or not.

I've removed that passage, changed "bylaws" to "by-laws", and changed "YES /
NO" to "YES or NO".

As Loui pointed out, we should agree on a final version soon. I currently
support this version:


More information about the aur-general mailing list