On Sep 24, John Goerzen wrote: > "Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the > > acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will > > determine if the proposal is voted under the General Resolution quorum or > > the Important Documents (constitution) quorum. > > This seems inconsistent. The quorum is specified by the > Constitution. Why, therefore, should the acceptance or rejection of a > mere GR amendment, which has yet had no actual force let alone one of > modifying the Constitution, have the effect of modifying voting > procedures? The Constitution lays out specific rules for voting. It > does not specify in any way that the result of a vote on a GR > amendment can act as an exception to voting procedure. > > Additionally, why should the question of the quorum > required for a vote be considered the presumed result from voting on a > different amdendment? It is possible that people might be in favor of > requiring the Important Documents quorum but against aj's amendment.
My understanding of Darren's argument is that the original proposal (removal of non-free) would modify the Social Contract, which is considered to be "constitutional" in nature (and thus requires the 3-1 majority to be modified). However, if aj's amendment were approved, the proposal would no longer amend the Social Contract and would be considered a normal general resolution subject to the GR rules. Chris -- Chris Lawrence Titles/affiliations at http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/info.html Office: 662-915-5949 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
