Buddha Buck writes ("Re: Ratifying the constitution "):
...
> That's not what it means. It means that in order for an amendment to
> automatically be accepted, you need to convince 6 people, Guy and the
> five seconds.
>
> If they don't like it, you can force it to a vote. I think you require
> seconds yourself inorder to do that, and then when it comes to a vote,
> you have to have a 3:1 majority.
No, that's not true. The 3:1 majority only applies to changing the
constitution once it's accepted, not to amendments. A.6(7):
7.If a supermajority is required the number of Yes votes
in the final ballot is reduced by an appropriate factor.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
> Out of curiosity, how formal does a proposed amendment have to be. I
> mean, will this work for an amendment proposal? (And if so, I'd like
> to propose it:
>
> ----------Amendment Proposal----------------
> Steve McIntyre, Jay Treacy, et al aren't realy doing the traditional
> job of "seconds", which is to indicate that there is enough interest to
> justify discussing an issue. Seconds traditionally aren't even
> recorded, just acknowledged as existing. Here, they have a lot more
> power than that. They are recorded by name, their must be a minimum
> number of them (mere existance isn't enough, there must be sufficient
> strength), and they must approve any "friendly amendment". Not only
> that, but if the proposer should fail to perform his duties, one of the
> seconds can assume that role (under the proper procedures). It is
> assumed that these five support the proposed constitution, not just
> feel it merits discussion. Seconds traditionally are allowed to argue
> against a measure the seconded -- they may have wanted the issue to be
> officially discused and killed. This is not the role of Steve
> McIntyre, Jay Treacy, etc.
>
> I propose that the constitution be modified to replace the work
> "second" (and affiliated declinations thereof) with the word "sponsor"
> (and affiliated declinations thereof), when used to refer to the people
> formally supporting a proposal brought forth under this constitution.
> -----------End Amendment Proposal-------------
>
> Or should I replace the second paragraph with a context diff of the
> constitution text, with the exact changes I want?
I don't think there's any lack of formality in your proposed
amendment, except that it's not clear from your message that you
actually are making this proposal.
I'd be perfectly happy with your amendment, but shan't second it
myself just now, because there's an extra week's delay involved from
the point where Guy accepts the amendment (I'd reduce the minimum
discussion period).
If Guy does accept this amendment I want to submit another (or have
Guy incorporate it):
After A.1(5) add:
6. The proposer of a resolution may make changes to correct minor
errors (for example, typographical errors or inconsistencies) or
changes which do not alter the meaning, providing noone objects
within 24 hours. In this case the mininum discussion period is not
restarted.
(This change of the word `seconder' to `sponsor' might well have
fallen under this proposed amendment.)
Ian.
