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

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
> The text of the resolution should be replaced

I was wondering why you didn't just propose a resolution of your own, since
this "amendement" guts the existing proposal (leaving it with a title that
contradicts its body), until I reviewed the constitution:

[from section A.1. of the Consitution]

    1. Following the proposal, the resolution may be discussed.
       Amendments may be made formal by being proposed and sponsored
       according to the requirements for a new resolution, or directly by
       the proposer of the original resolution.
    2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer,
       in which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed
       to match.
    3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of
       the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer
       of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and
       will be voted on.
    4. If an amendment accepted by the original proposer is not to the
       liking of others, they may propose another amendment to reverse
       the earlier change (again, they must meet the requirements for
       proposer and sponsor(s).)
    5. The proposer or a resolution may suggest changes to the wordings
       of amendments; these take effect if the proposer of the amendment
       agrees and none of the sponsors object. In this case the changed
       amendments will be voted on instead of the originals.

It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you
couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement.

I urge John to reject this amendement per section A.1.3. (3. above) of the
Constitution.  If he does not, then I, as a sponsor (see Message-ID:
<[🔎] 20000608173832.C870@ecn.purdue.edu>), do so disagree.

G. Branden Robinson            |     The basic test of freedom is perhaps
Debian GNU/Linux               |     less in what we are free to do than in
branden@ecn.purdue.edu         |     what we are free not to do.
roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |     -- Eric Hoffer

Attachment: pgpTohrPdhs_S.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: