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

Re: Question for the other candidates: supermajority.

On Thu Mar 25 18:37, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 05:16:33PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > That not withstanding, there is still a legitimate point here. What
> > happens when an amendment is proposed which has different majority
> > requirements to the others? What happens when the secretary and the
> > proposer disagree about the majority requirements?
> > 
> This has happened before. The secretary adjudicates any disputes about
> interpretation of the constitution.
> I would suggest that in future, it doesn't get this far by a proposer
> asking the secretary for their probable view *first* if they're
> proposing anything which may require a supermajority.
> Or anyone could simply ask the secretary for advice about any GR, and
> I'm sure they'd receive a comment about phrasing/legitamacy/quorate etc.

Indeed, however, where there is a clear disagreement it would be nice to have a
policy of whether we a. don't run the vote until everyone agrees and is happy,
b. don't run a vote with mixed majority options, c. run whatever vote is
proposed with whatever majority options the secretary thinks is correct (which
is I believe the current situation which lead to the arguments mentioned in the
OP) d. all / none of the above.


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: