Re: Status of Proposals [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5
On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 11:37:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> That's not precisely what I recall us agreeing to. I recall us agreeing to a
> ballot that, I suppose, could take a form like this:
> [ ] YES to Foundational Documents amendment
> [ ] NO to Foundational Documents amendment
> [ ] YES to "modify and withdraw" amendment
> [ ] NO to "modify and withdraw" amendment
I think that was the orignal suggestion on the mailing lists, but there
were objections to it.
> As you can see, both proposals amend only the first sentence of section 5,
> and they amend it in exactly the same way (whitespace aside).
That's true, but...
> This is why I suggested that we have, on the same ballot, the following two
> choices:
> * amend Constitution to change language of section 5
> * amend Constitution to add sections 5.1 and 5.2
> These are, of course, nonexclusive options; a person may vote for either,
> both, or neither.
However, a person's decision on one option may be dependant on the
outcome of the other. People who wish to make it hard to modify the
foundation documents would ideally want to have both options pass but
would not wish to see the "modify and withdraw" amendment go through
without some additional protection being provided for the foundation
documents.
As well as eliminating an inconsistent (or at least somewhat peculiar)
outcome Manoj's proposal also seems to answer this problem. I'm not
sure how well it allows people to say "I want to modify the foundation
documents but I'm not concerned about how easy that is", although I
think preference ranking ought to DTRT.
--
Mark Brown mailto:broonie@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Reply to: