Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

2012-05-20 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 06:18:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:17:49AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > Rejected amendments, i.e. those > > > that result in additional ballot options, do not reset th

Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

2012-05-19 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:17:49AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Rejected amendments, i.e. those > > that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion > > period. > I think they do reset the discussion period wh

Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

2012-05-19 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Rejected amendments, i.e. those > that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion > period. I think they do reset the discussion period when they get accepted (have enough seconds), but I would need to re-re

Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

2012-05-19 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Wouter, On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > When I read the constitution so many years ago for the first time, there > were some things that stuck, and others that didn't. One of the things > that stuck was a particular power of the DPL which I hadn't seen used >

(maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

2012-05-19 Thread Wouter Verhelst
Hi all, When I read the constitution so many years ago for the first time, there were some things that stuck, and others that didn't. One of the things that stuck was a particular power of the DPL which I hadn't seen used in, like, forever. And when I wanted to send a private mail to our current D