Re: Ammendment: Constituion
> III. `Seconder' vs. `sponsor':
> Budda Bhuck justified and proposed the change of the word `seconder'
> to `sponsor', and I agree. (His message is attached.)
> So, change all occurrences of `seconder' relating to people
> supporting resolutions to `sponsor'.
Ooops, I forgot to attach the message _and_ I got Buddha Buck's name
Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Resent-Date: 11 Sep 1998 12:26:40 -0000
From: Buddha Buck <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Ratifying the constitution
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 12:32:12 GMT
Joseph Carter said
> On Thu, Sep 10, 1998 at 11:19:06PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> > It's unlikely that I will accept any amendments. Instead I will call
> > for a vote on the constitution and all amendments after the minimum
> > discussion period has passed. Note that amendments must pass with a
> > 3:1 majority, though the constitution itself needs only a simple
> > majority.
> Of 5, that would mean 4 of those 5 would have to agree
That's not what it means. It means that in order for an amendment to
automatically be accepted, you need to convince 6 people, Guy and the
If they don't like it, you can force it to a vote. I think you require
seconds yourself inorder to do that, and then when it comes to a vote,
you have to have a 3:1 majority.
In this case, if we assume that just the minimum of 30 vote, then an
amendment would pass if 23 people voted for it.
>. Ammendments aren't
> going to be easy unless people like them, clearly. =>
And that is how it should be.
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:
Steve McIntyre, Jay Treacy, et al aren't realy doing the traditional
job of "seconds", which is to indicate that there is enough interest to
justify discussing an issue. Seconds traditionally aren't even
recorded, just acknowledged as existing. Here, they have a lot more
power than that. They are recorded by name, their must be a minimum
number of them (mere existance isn't enough, there must be sufficient
strength), and they must approve any "friendly amendment". Not only
that, but if the proposer should fail to perform his duties, one of the
seconds can assume that role (under the proper procedures). It is
assumed that these five support the proposed constitution, not just
feel it merits discussion. Seconds traditionally are allowed to argue
against a measure the seconded -- they may have wanted the issue to be
officially discused and killed. This is not the role of Steve
McIntyre, Jay Treacy, etc.
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-------------
Or should I replace the second paragraph with a context diff of the
constitution text, with the exact changes I want?
Buddha Buck email@example.com
"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
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com