On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:33:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:32:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > But I don't see how this fits in with the constitution. We're operating,
> > I presume, under the `standard resolution procedure', ie appendix A. We've
> > has a proposal (Branden's, I guess) which has been proposed and seconded,
> > and we've had discussion and an amendment (Manoj's) which has apparently
> > received the appropriate number of seconds (A.1.1), and is presumably
> > being treated under A.1.3.
> Wrong, wrong, wrong.
> Manoj's and my proposals are wholly independent procedurally. This has
> been stated time and time again. One of them is NOT an amendment to the
> other.
Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpVyIiT52kfp.pgp
Description: PGP signature