We have had two proposals appear very recently. At least G seems to me like it needs some work on the text and there are comments about F floating about.
It seems to me that if improvements to G (say) become available and are acceptable to the proposer, they should be on the ballot, probably instead of the existing G. Because of ambiguity in the constitution (sorry) it is not clear who can formally accept such an amendment, and also there is the problem that it might reset the discussion period. I think, however, that the DPL has the power to solve this problem. The DPL can formally propose a new amendment and that immediately qualifies for appearing on the ballot. The proposer can then withdraw their version. Ideally we would not treat this as wiping out the list of seconders and replacing the proponent with the DPL, for the purposes of the public web page etc. Since all the DPL is doing is procedural management. I therefore suggest that proponents (such as myself) who say they wish to accept amendments to their versions, should be taken as (for technical Constitution A purposes) withdrawing their original proposal iff the the DPL says that the revised proposal should be on the ballot. The only part of this that is irregular is listing the original secondors on the web page etc., but that seems better than the alternative. Compared to the formal position this *does* have the effect of shortening (perhaps to zero) the period during which a seconder can say they are not happy with an amendment and take their name off it. That seems better than taking everyone's name off it (and replacing the proposer name with the DPL's) purely for technical reasons particularly since it seems unlikely that seconders are going to object. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
