On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 12:03:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, he presented a proposed *ballot*, intended to serve for both pending
> GR's . One atomic unit. The bits that comprise it have already been
> proposed, seconded, and seen Calls for Votes.
First: Apart from the missing "reject both proposals" option, I think Manoj's
and Branden's ballot makes sense. It probably would've been a much better
form for my alternative to John Goerzen's proposal to take too.
But I don't see how this fits in with the constitution. We're operating,
I presume, under the `standard resolution procedure', ie appendix A. We've
has a proposal (Branden's, I guess) which has been proposed and seconded,
and we've had discussion and an amendment (Manoj's) which has apparently
received the appropriate number of seconds (A.1.1), and is presumably
being treated under A.1.3.
Given this, A.3.1 and A.3.2 seem to imply that we have to have two
votes, one to determine whether Branden's preferred form, or Manoj's
will be used, and one on whether to amend the constitution in whatever
form. Indeed, the proposed ballot seems to violate the last sentence
of A.3.3.
Am I misreading something somewhere? If not, and if we ever get around
to correcting the constitution, this should probably be changed as well
as fixing up the "Concordet" vote counting...
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpxqJytLapMb.pgp
Description: PGP signature