On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>> The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second, on > >>> the 12th of January, and as no further amendments were accepted, a > >>> call for a vote is appropriate any time two weeks after that (from > >>> the 26th of January), as per A.2(1) and A.2(4). > > 4.2(4): the minimum discussion period is 2 weeks (and hasn't been > > varied) A.2(4): the minimum discussion period is counted from the > > time > > (a) the last formal amendment was accepted > Adeodato's new proposal was formally accepted yesterday. According to the usage in the constitution, it was made formal yesterday, by receiving enough seconds. The term "formal" in relation to GRs is used only in A.1 and A.2(4). A.1(1) indicates an amendment can be made formal simply by being proposed and sponsored; or directly by the original proposer. This has happened for Adeodato's amendment, making it a formal amendment. A.1(2) indicates "accepted" amendments are distinct from "formal amendments" by providing a means for an amendment that is already formal to become accepted. A.1(3) provides the other branch of that, by indicating what should happen when "a formal amendment is not accepted". The only uses of the term "accepted" are in A.1(2,3,4), A.2(4), and A.4; A.1(2) and A.1(4) talk specifically about being "accepted by the original proposer", and A.1(3) also talks about the "acceptance by the proposer". A.4 talks primarily about "unaccepted" amendments, which already have sponsors and which may be "kept alive" should the proposer withdraw the amendment, or should any sponsors withdraw their sponsorship. That leaves A.2(4) which spells out that the amendments it talks about must both be "formal" and "accepted", and "proposed and accepted". > I > think your error is in interpretng the accepted to imply the original > GR propoer accepting the amendment, I see it as an amendment being > accepted as an alternate on the ballot. I don't believe there's an error in the above -- it's a consistent reading of the terms used in the constitution. The alternative reading you propose means that "accepted" means one thing in three paragraphs immediately preceeding the section we're talking about, and a paragraph shortly after it; but something completely different -- and redundant, given the formality is already specified -- in the one we're looking at. > If there is an option on the ballot, there should be adequate > time to discuss it. Certainly; and there has been. Adeodato's update is a change of wording the reasons for which have already been discussed in depth over the past few weeks. In any event, the secretary does have absolute discretion in delaying running the vote after the call for vote comes out, so if you feel it's appropriate you can delay it for two weeks or two months anyway. But that's a different thing to saying that the minimum discussion period /requires/ the vote to be delayed an additional two weeks. Beyond the "six people can delay a vote indefinitely" consideration, it also introduces a different problem; namely that delaying the call for a vote so someone working on amendment can tidy it up becomes a bad tradeoff for the initial proposer -- I could've gotten the CFV out three weeks earlier than you're suggesting if I'd ignored Adeodato's desire to improve his amendment (and avoid the 3:1 requirement) by calling for a vote at the start of the week. > Indeed, a new option on the ballot may present > novel idea, and having a vote without discussion of the new option > seems ... odd. Even if the vote were automated and had started immediately, there's still two weeks in which people can discuss the issue and change their vote. And this topic's been under discussion for years already, and this GR itself has already in discussion for over a month; more discussion isn't what we need here. > > So the minimum discussion period ended on the 26th Jan 2006 09:59:20 > > +0000, afaics. Since the initial draft of the GR was posted 1st > > January, we've already been discussing this for six weeks, so I > > don't think there's any need for another two weeks on this. > Adeodato's new proposal has not had any discussion that I can > see. I would be interested in the thoughts of people who sponsored > the opriginal GR on why the original deserves to be voted above > adeodato's proposal. As one of the sponsors, you can satisfy that desire yourself as well as anyone else can :) > >> Look at section A.1.6, which specifies what changes to a > >> proposal do not restart the minimum discussion period. > > That allows the original resolution to be changed in some cases > > without the discussion period restarting. > I think distinct options on a ballot count as independent > proposals for related issues. That's utterly absurd: the proposals are directly contradictory; they're not even remotely "independent". Besides which they were all proposed as amendments. In summary, I don't think a pedantic reading of the constitution justifies delaying the vote; and I don't think there's anything much still to be said that would full up two weeks of discussion. Having the issue be undecided during the DPL debates doesn't seem much of a win either. Again, can we please move on to a vote on this issue? Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature