Peter Lewis wrote: > Okay, I don't intend to push this. I just think it would be nice to avoid any > ambiguity where someone says that we have to wait 3 months e.g. to amend > quorum, since a proposal to do that just failed, even though the second > proposal might be slightly different.
I share your sentiment but I just don't see any practical way to objectively qualify proposals and resolve the issue. It's no wonder that there are so many poorly worded laws. They're difficult to write well and I suspect most legislators spend less time on major laws than we have on the bylaws. > > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bylaw_Amendment&oldid=124479 > > I'm happy with that. Want to propose it then? Let's wait another day to get some more comments and incorporate any last changes. If it changes during the discussion period without unanimous consent then we would end up in a grey area when deciding which version to vote on (and we're limited by YES/NO proposals... haha).
