On Thu Mar 25 18:37, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:16:33PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > That not withstanding, there is still a legitimate point here. What > > happens when an amendment is proposed which has different majority > > requirements to the others? What happens when the secretary and the > > proposer disagree about the majority requirements? > > > > This has happened before. The secretary adjudicates any disputes about > interpretation of the constitution. > I would suggest that in future, it doesn't get this far by a proposer > asking the secretary for their probable view *first* if they're > proposing anything which may require a supermajority. > > Or anyone could simply ask the secretary for advice about any GR, and > I'm sure they'd receive a comment about phrasing/legitamacy/quorate etc. Indeed, however, where there is a clear disagreement it would be nice to have a policy of whether we a. don't run the vote until everyone agrees and is happy, b. don't run a vote with mixed majority options, c. run whatever vote is proposed with whatever majority options the secretary thinks is correct (which is I believe the current situation which lead to the arguments mentioned in the OP) d. all / none of the above. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature