[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ammendment: Constituion

I wrote:
> 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
wrong !


Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: 11 Sep 1998 12:26:40 -0000
Resent-Message-ID: <"sVi5_.B.4CG._bR-1"@murphy>
Resent-Sender: debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
From: Buddha Buck <bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.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 
five seconds.

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:

----------Amendment Proposal----------------
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                      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

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: