Re: Ratifying the constitution
> Buddha Buck writes ("Re: Ratifying the constitution "):
> ...
> ...
> > 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:
> >
> > ----------Amendment Proposal----------------
[replace "seconds" with "sponsor"]
> > -----------End Amendment Proposal-------------
> >
> > Or should I replace the second paragraph with a context diff of the
> > constitution text, with the exact changes I want?
>
> I don't think there's any lack of formality in your proposed
> amendment, except that it's not clear from your message that you
> actually are making this proposal.
I would have made it, except:
1. Guy indicated that he didn't see the distinction between "second"
and "sponsor" significant enough to warrant changing the text, and
declined to accept my amendment as "friendly".
2. Given that it is an esoteric point of procedure, and that I felt
that few people cared about it, I didn't think I could find the support
to force the issue as an "unfriendly" amendment.
3. Although I state my opinion occasionally, and hopefully make good
points more often than bad, I am not officially a developer, and thus
technically have no standing to propose or vote on resolutions,
amendments, etc. So in order to push the issue, I would have to find a
developer who felt strongly enough about the issue to officially
propose it for me. No one seemed to care, so I didn't look hard for
someone.
> I'd be perfectly happy with your amendment, but shan't second it
> myself just now, because there's an extra week's delay involved from
> the point where Guy accepts the amendment (I'd reduce the minimum
> discussion period).
>
> If Guy does accept this amendment I want to submit another (or have
> Guy incorporate it):
>
> After A.1(5) add:
>
> 6. The proposer of a resolution may make changes to correct minor
> errors (for example, typographical errors or inconsistencies) or
> changes which do not alter the meaning, providing noone objects
> within 24 hours. In this case the mininum discussion period is not
> restarted.
>
> (This change of the word `seconder' to `sponsor' might well have
> fallen under this proposed amendment.)
>
> Ian.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Reply to: