[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes: > Eh? No ballots need to be issued to "ratify" an amendment *AS* an > amendment to an existing proposal: > > A.1.2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in > which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to match. > > 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.
Right, and the result of adopting an amendment is to change the GR under consideration. It's elementary parliamentary procedure. Accepting an amendment (by either process A.1.2 or A.1.3) amounts to amending the proposal, which is NOT the same thing as adopting the proposal as amended. Now in many cases, one might compress two votes to one, and vote to adopt an amendment at the same time as adopting the resultant proposition. Doing so always seems like a nice optimization at the time, but it makes things more confusing the first tme the extra process is necessary (like today). > 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. Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one. Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the proposal, but does not thereby adopt it.
