[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 02:44:34AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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.

Well, you'll note that the non-free resolution and these weren't at any
stage suggested to be on the same ballot.

If you look through the constitution, nothing anywhere gives any hint that
distinct proposals may be voted on concurrently, so I hope you'll forgive
me if I didn't take that interpretation. And, again, it's explicitly
stated that the final form of any resolution is voted on where the
options are `Yes, No, and Further Discussion' (A.3.3), it's only when
deciding on that final form that alternatives are able to be considered.

> > 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, 

Nonsense. There's nothing confusing about what you're doing; the only
confusing thing is trying to establish a constitutional authority for it.

> * People think it's productive[2] to "amend" a General Resolution so as to
>   completely reverse its meaning and/or effect.  

Well, no. People (well, at least one of them) think the only
constitutionally sound way of offering an alternative to be voted on
is to amend a resolution, whether that alternative completely reverses
its meaning and/or effect or not.

I'm not sure why you think following the constitution rather than making
up things that seem right is dishonest and disreputable.

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: pgp7Rxw6TthMa.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: