On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:46:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> A.1.3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of the
> resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer of a formal
> amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and will be voted on.
>
> I have provided A.1.2. as context. John Goerzen has made it clear that he
> does not accept the language of Anthony Towns's amendment. Therefore
> A.1.3. applies here. Anthony Towns's amendment must be voted on
> effectively as an independent GR.
That is what this ballot is. Does anyone think otherwise?
> properly seconded (I have seen no reference to a message that enumerates
> his required seconds, though I am confident anecdotally that he has them),
Darren's previous announcement on this issue listed the URLs.
> The complicating factor here is that the Project Secretary has asserted,
> without any direct textual foundation in the Constitution[*], that John
> Goerzen's GR will require a higher quorum to pass (3:1) than Anthony
> Towns's de facto GR (simple majority).
The constituition does not clearly state that the social contract
may be modified at all. Thus you have two options: accept Darren's
interpretation and require a 3:1 majority, or accept that you cannot
change the social contract at all. Neither answer allows the simple
majority that you want.
It seems quite obvious to me: this ballot asks us whether to accept
aj's proprosed amendment to John's GR.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP signature
