GR timing and "accepted" amendments
We have had two proposals appear very recently. At least G seems to
me like it needs some work on the text and there are comments about F
floating about.
It seems to me that if improvements to G (say) become available and
are acceptable to the proposer, they should be on the ballot, probably
instead of the existing G. Because of ambiguity in the constitution
(sorry) it is not clear who can formally accept such an amendment, and
also there is the problem that it might reset the discussion period.
I think, however, that the DPL has the power to solve this problem.
The DPL can formally propose a new amendment and that immediately
qualifies for appearing on the ballot. The proposer can then withdraw
their version.
Ideally we would not treat this as wiping out the list of seconders
and replacing the proponent with the DPL, for the purposes of the
public web page etc. Since all the DPL is doing is procedural
management.
I therefore suggest that proponents (such as myself) who say they wish
to accept amendments to their versions, should be taken as (for
technical Constitution A purposes) withdrawing their original proposal
iff the the DPL says that the revised proposal should be on the
ballot.
The only part of this that is irregular is listing the original
secondors on the web page etc., but that seems better than the
alternative. Compared to the formal position this *does* have the
effect of shortening (perhaps to zero) the period during which a
seconder can say they are not happy with an amendment and take their
name off it. That seems better than taking everyone's name off it
(and replacing the proposer name with the DPL's) purely for technical
reasons particularly since it seems unlikely that seconders are going
to object.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: