On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > > Kurt> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 01:09:10PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > >> > >> [change removing regret about having another GR] > >> > >> > Unless anyone objects by 1400 UTC on Wednesday, I intend to > >> accept > this amendment, assuming that this is procedurally > >> kosher. > >> > >> I'm also in favour of that. My understanding of procedure is that > >> seconds remain valid, and if anyone of the original seconders > >> objects, they need to explicitly rescind and/or propose the > >> original text as a new option, which then requires the usual > >> number of seconds. > > Kurt> I think under a strict reading of the constitution, only Sam, > Kurt> as the proposer of a resolution, can suggest changes and then > Kurt> Ian can agree to them. As long as nobody complains, I will > Kurt> just allow Ian to accept it. > > If it helps I hereby suggest Steve's change. > > In general I'm very in favor of the secretary interpreting the > constitution to allow Ian or other proposal authors to update their > proposals in response to feedback. > My preferred such interpretation would be that Ian is withdrawing and > submitting his proposal, and the secretary interprets the sponsorships > to still apply unless that is clearly inconsistent with the text of the > sponsorship.
That's how I see it too. Kurt
