Re: Ratifying the constitution
On 11-Sep-98 Buddha Buck wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how formal does a proposed amendment have to be. I
> mean, will this work for an amendment proposal? (And if so, I'd like
> to propose it:
I would think that -- in one sense -- they don't have to be super formal. Get
your intentions across to the "proposer and seconders" and ask them if they
support the change. If they do, then draw the amendment up. If the people in
question have some sort of question or need clarification, they can ask. If
they decide NOT to include it.. then get formal... change the subject to
something like Proposal: Amendment of Constitution... round up your
seconds/sponsers... go though the discussion.. vote.. etc. To sum what I said,
I don't think it needs to be as formal as a proposal unless it gets to the
stage where you need seconds and a vote on the amendment.
> ----------Amendment Proposal----------------
[snip]
> I propose that the constitution be modified to replace the work
> "second" (and affiliated declinations thereof) with the word "sponsor"
> (and affiliated declinations thereof), when used to refer to the people
> formally supporting a proposal brought forth under this constitution.
> -----------End Amendment Proposal-------------
I am curious what your answer to "Why is the title of the seconds/sponsers
important?" would be.
Everyone: I'm curious to know if you all agree that, in the context of the
constitution system, a second really does imply support...
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
* Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 *
* <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
* * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- *
* Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ *
* <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*
=========================================================================
Reply to: