Anthony Towns <[email protected]> writes: > Given this, A.3.1 and A.3.2 seem to imply that we have to have two > votes, one to determine whether Branden's preferred form, or Manoj's > will be used, and one on whether to amend the constitution in whatever > form. Indeed, the proposed ballot seems to violate the last sentence > of A.3.3.
A.3.1 is not relevant, because we aren't talking about amendments. (Amendments of the Constitution are actual resolutions; it would only be amendments to the amendments that are amendments within the sense of the GR Procedure.) What we have are alternative answers to the question "how, if at all, should we amend the Constitution wrt the modification of certain documents?" In addition, the people who have a legitimate stake in the formal posture of Manoj's and Branden's proposals are them, and their seconders. As long as they agree, things are fine, and the goal here is for the Secretary and the two proposers to work out a suitable ballot so that the developers can make a sensible choice. Since this appears to be moving along (YAY!) we should encourage them in their efforts, which I suspect will proceed nicely and we'll have a ballot soon enough. Darren seems to be doing the Right Thing here, and we should let that happen so that we can have a sensible fix of the constitution's manifest inclarity on this point. (By "manifest" I mean that if it were crystal clear, there wouldn't have been a giant flame war about it.) Thomas
