The OPerating manual first mentions the veto like this:
If a proposal is submitted for a vote and does not pass, but is not vetoed, the proposal will not be executed.
The reader is left completely at a loss about what a veto is and what happens now. In a logical flow, the veto would have already been described, so that we can use it now.
The phrase needs to be clearer as well, it seems that if a proposal is submitted there can be three outcomes:
Even worse, the next sentence is:
If a proposal author wishes to iterate on a proposal that has been rejected, they should:
Is a veto a rejection? Probably not. As a reader, I'm not sure.
Probably the original phrase should be:
"If a proposal is submitted for a vote and fails, the proposal will not be executed."
For that we need to be strict about the use of "approve", "pass", "fail" and "veto", or other terms for those actions if we agree on them.
The OPerating manual first mentions the veto like this:
The reader is left completely at a loss about what a veto is and what happens now. In a logical flow, the veto would have already been described, so that we can use it now.
The phrase needs to be clearer as well, it seems that if a proposal is submitted there can be three outcomes:
Even worse, the next sentence is:
Probably the original phrase should be:
"If a proposal is submitted for a vote and fails, the proposal will not be executed."
For that we need to be strict about the use of "approve", "pass", "fail" and "veto", or other terms for those actions if we agree on them.