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 <[email protected]> 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: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendment&oldid=124479
