On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 09:40:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > 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.
> A.3.1 is not relevant, because we aren't talking about amendments.
We aren't? Then why do both Branden's and Manoj's proposals have separate
lists of seconds? If A.3.1 doesn't apply, surely A.3.2 still does, in
which case the only permissable options for the final ballot are "Yes,
No and Further Discussion".
> What we have are alternative answers to the question "how, if at all,
> should we amend the Constitution wrt the modification of certain
> documents?"
Yes, I realise this. And as I said in the last mail, I think Branden
and Manoj are handling this in the optimum manner. I'm just concerned
that the constitution seems to advocate a suboptimal manner (and one
which seems to have inspired Branden to mock me every chance he gets
for having tried to follow it last time round).
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:
pgpWYOQGaOEKz.pgp
Description: PGP signature