>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <email@example.com> writes: Kurt> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 01:09:10PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >> >> [change removing regret about having another GR] >> >> > Unless anyone objects by 1400 UTC on Wednesday, I intend to >> accept > this amendment, assuming that this is procedurally >> kosher. >> >> I'm also in favour of that. My understanding of procedure is that >> seconds remain valid, and if anyone of the original seconders >> objects, they need to explicitly rescind and/or propose the >> original text as a new option, which then requires the usual >> number of seconds. Kurt> I think under a strict reading of the constitution, only Sam, Kurt> as the proposer of a resolution, can suggest changes and then Kurt> Ian can agree to them. As long as nobody complains, I will Kurt> just allow Ian to accept it. If it helps I hereby suggest Steve's change. In general I'm very in favor of the secretary interpreting the constitution to allow Ian or other proposal authors to update their proposals in response to feedback. My preferred such interpretation would be that Ian is withdrawing and submitting his proposal, and the secretary interprets the sponsorships to still apply unless that is clearly inconsistent with the text of the sponsorship. If the secretary would rather assume that I as proposer of the resolution suggest any necessary changes to the formal amendments I'm fine with that too. Basically I don't want to get in the way of people refining text.
Description: PGP signature