On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:48:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > In summary, I don't think a pedantic reading of the constitution > > justifies delaying the vote; and I don't think there's anything much > > still to be said that would full up two weeks of discussion. Having > > the issue be undecided during the DPL debates doesn't seem much of a > > win either. > Heh. I think it is a pedantic reading that cuts off any > discussion two qweeksa after initia; proposal, no matter how > interesting an alternate proposal appears on the ballot. That's not correct; the constitution says that the original proposer and sponsors can call for a vote anytime after the minimum discussion period is up -- not that they're not required to, and even if they do, discussion is not required to end, nor is the secretary required to immediately run the vote. > Err, I am saying that. This is not a new interpretation; I > have always maintained, often in public, that the DOS effect of > rejected amendments can delay a vote indefinitely, and that the > secretary must then step in and stop that. I can't say I'm impressed that you're sticking to an interpretation that allows the project to be rendered unable to make a decision without the secretary assuming the power to ignore amendments, particularly when an alternative reading that doesn't have that flaw is available. And yes, I did previously hold the same view up until the last vote, at which point I read the constitution more carefully. Anyway, I've got better things to do, so I'll see you all in another two weeks, when this vote will've been in discussion for two months. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature