Re: Amendment: automatic expiry-on-failure, to Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Kurt Roeckx <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> AMENDMENT START
>>> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
>>> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>>> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
>>> proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
>>> required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
>>> required number of seconds returns to K."
>>> AMENDMENT END
> What exactly are you seconding? This is a proposal that modifies *3* of
> the other proposals.
This is one of those messy things that our current system doesn't handle
all that well. I'd really sort of like this to be a separate vote on a
different axis contingent on one of the changes to the seconding threshold
beating FD or the FD-look-alike option, but that's not an available option
in our voting system at present.
If Joerg isn't willing to accept the amendment, I suppose it's three
separate amendments that probably all need to be seconded independently.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>