Proposal: Veto clarification (II)
Times out and fails 1-7. -Bucky
Adminned at 19 Jun 2010 09:41:46 UTC
In section 1.5, change
If the RNG’s most recent Vote is VETO, and that EVC includes the word “Proceduralâ€, the vetoed proposal can be failed immediately by any admin, even if it is not the oldest pending proposal.
Whenever an Admin marks a proposal, CfJ, or DoV as enacted or failed, he must also mark his name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).
Proposals the RNG has Voted to VETO are considered vetoed. Proposals the author has Voted against are considered self-killed unless the RNG has Voted VETO on them, or they have fulfilled one of the other requirements to fail a proposal before the author’s self-kill Vote is placed. Immediately after enacting a proposal that causes a rule with no name to be added to the ruleset, unless the proposal specifically states that the rule should have no name, the enacting admin can change the rule’s title to give it a name, so long as doing so does not change the meaning of any part of the ruleset, nor change any properties of the rule (such as specific words in the title) that the ruleset specifically cares about.
to
If a proposal is vetoed, and the RNG’s last Vote on that proposal includes the word “Proceduralâ€, that proposal can be failed immediately by any admin, even if it is not the oldest pending proposal.
Whenever an Admin marks a proposal, CfJ, or DoV as enacted or failed, he must also mark his name, and report the final tally of Votes (or the fact that it was self-killed or vetoed).
Proposals the RNG has Voted to VETO are considered vetoed unless the RNG has a more recent Vote on that proposal changing the vote to a value other than VETO. Proposals the author has Voted against are considered self-killed unless the RNG has Voted VETO on them, or they have fulfilled one of the other requirements to fail a proposal before the author’s self-kill Vote is placed. Immediately after enacting a proposal that causes a rule with no name to be added to the ruleset, unless the proposal specifically states that the rule should have no name, the enacting admin can change the rule’s title to give it a name, so long as doing so does not change the meaning of any part of the ruleset, nor change any properties of the rule (such as specific words in the title) that the ruleset specifically cares about.
Clarify the “vetoed†state to remove a technical issue* and make procedural vetos rely on that state. Re-submitted now that I’m not idle (didn’t realize my status wasn’t yet changed when I posted).
* There are no EVCs until the proposal is resolved.
This makes procedural vetoes impossible because of “[...]the RNG’s last Vote on that proposal includes the word “Proceduralâ€[...]”. A vote cannot contain text, only an EVC (as in the current wording).
Narya: