Re: Proposed amendment to Proposal D
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> 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.
That's how I see it too.
Kurt
Reply to: