On Sep 24, John Goerzen wrote:
> "Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the
> > acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will
> > determine if the proposal is voted under the General Resolution quorum or
> > the Important Documents (constitution) quorum.
>
> This seems inconsistent. The quorum is specified by the
> Constitution. Why, therefore, should the acceptance or rejection of a
> mere GR amendment, which has yet had no actual force let alone one of
> modifying the Constitution, have the effect of modifying voting
> procedures? The Constitution lays out specific rules for voting. It
> does not specify in any way that the result of a vote on a GR
> amendment can act as an exception to voting procedure.
>
> Additionally, why should the question of the quorum
> required for a vote be considered the presumed result from voting on a
> different amdendment? It is possible that people might be in favor of
> requiring the Important Documents quorum but against aj's amendment.
My understanding of Darren's argument is that the original proposal
(removal of non-free) would modify the Social Contract, which is
considered to be "constitutional" in nature (and thus requires the 3-1
majority to be modified). However, if aj's amendment were approved,
the proposal would no longer amend the Social Contract and would be
considered a normal general resolution subject to the GR rules.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence
Titles/affiliations at http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/info.html
Office: 662-915-5949 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
