At 10:52 AM 11-28-2000 -0800, you wrote:
>Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>So, then, the procedure will be:
>
>1) Amend the Constitution to fix up the voting procedure, especially when
> supermajorities are needed.
>
>2) Vote to decide what the threshhold will be for amendments to the
> Social Contract.
>
>3) Vote on the amendment to the Social Contract.
It was not my intention to attempt to push the vote to amend the Social
Contract back any further than necessary.
At least one of the above votes will have to be conducted under the current
supermajority voting rules. I see no procedural reason why (2) and
possibly (3) (depending on the outcome of (2)) can't be done that way as
well, saving my suggested clarification amendment for last.
Since The Manoj/Branden proposals have actually been made, and the
clarification amendment is still in the formulation stages, I would say
that (2) has seniority, and should take place before (1) anyway. The
Goerzen/Towns proposals (i.e., (3)) have been ruled "not current", so are
in limbo like the clarification amendment.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
