At 10:52 AM 11-28-2000 -0800, you wrote:
Buddha Buck <bmbuck@14850.com> writes: So, then, the procedure will be: 1) Amend the Constitution to fix up the voting procedure, especially when supermajorities are needed. 2) Vote to decide what the threshhold will be for amendments to the Social Contract. 3) Vote on the amendment to the Social Contract.
It was not my intention to attempt to push the vote to amend the Social Contract back any further than necessary.
At least one of the above votes will have to be conducted under the current supermajority voting rules. I see no procedural reason why (2) and possibly (3) (depending on the outcome of (2)) can't be done that way as well, saving my suggested clarification amendment for last.
Since The Manoj/Branden proposals have actually been made, and the clarification amendment is still in the formulation stages, I would say that (2) has seniority, and should take place before (1) anyway. The Goerzen/Towns proposals (i.e., (3)) have been ruled "not current", so are in limbo like the clarification amendment.