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

Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5



On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:49:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> We aren't? Then why do both Branden's and Manoj's proposals have separate
> lists of seconds?

For the same reason my resolution and John Goerzen's non-free one do.

They're separate resolutions.

> If A.3.1 doesn't apply, surely A.3.2 still does, in
> which case the only permissable options for the final ballot are "Yes,
> No and Further Discussion".

This effort to create a unified ballot for Manoj's and my proposals is
obviously formenting confusion, which is not an argument in favor of trying
to cram votes on both of them into the same ballot.

A confusing ballot is bad.  I cannot be satisfied with a joint ballot
proposal that fails to clearly communicate the issues being voted upon.

Manoj, can you help explain to Anthony why my resolution is NOT an
amendment[1] to yours, and vice versa?

> Yes, I realise this. And as I said in the last mail, I think Branden
> and Manoj are handling this in the optimum manner.

You seem to be pretty fuzzy on how we're handling it altogether.

> I'm just concerned that the constitution seems to advocate a suboptimal
> manner (and one which seems to have inspired Branden to mock me every
> chance he gets for having tried to follow it last time round).

The Constitution's resolution procedure seems to be, on the basis of what
little evidence of it in action we have, to be fairly sound.  There are
clearly at least two shortcomings, which are probably due more to this
Project's inexperience with the procedure than anything else:

* People find it difficult to distinguish General Resolutions to amend the
  Constituion from amendments to General Resolutions.

* People think it's productive[2] to "amend" a General Resolution so as to
  completely reverse its meaning and/or effect.  I wonder if England's
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers was named ironically on purpose, or if
  in fact started out not being what it ended up as, which was a sweeping
  DE-regulation of the Crown's investigatory powers.

[1] in the sense of the Constitution's Standard Resolution Procdure
[2] or honest, or respectable, etc.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson             |     If a man ate a pound of pasta and a
Debian GNU/Linux                |     pound of antipasto, would they cancel
branden@debian.org              |     out, leaving him still hungry?
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Scott Adams

Attachment: pgptJqIRvJt5Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: