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]>
pgpdbBg5tzSNO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
