On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 13:19 +0100, John Seago wrote: > Having had over thirty years experience of meeting at National level I have > to tell you that not only are amendments acceptable, they are one of the > usual methods of proceeding.
In general, I definitely agree. For all normal proposals, amendments must be possible. But for constitutional proposals, we have to make sure they are published for a good period of time, and I don't see why amended proposals should be different. But, as I said, this is my personal view. > Perhaps then the way forward is to, (once all are agreed in which fora/list > discussion takes place), publish proposals as soon as they are formulated, > to publish counter proposals or amendments as soon as they are formulated, > discuss the merits of each and as the deadline for notice of the meeting > approaches each party holding whatever view will have a chance to see what > the proposals and views of others are/is. Yeah, I think that's absolutely right, and was honestly what I tried to do last time - my proposals were available before the deadline. Whether they were available for long enough - I can't remember what period they were - I don't know; I guess they were not. Thinking about it, we need to do this for the next AGM now, really. I'll get on it. > However there has to be an agreed format for all motions, if the AFFS > does not wish to allow amendment, (even by the Proposer or Seconder), > then that is a matter which will have to be discussed and voted upon Yup. I think it's an issue which needs to be addressed. I don't think it's a burning issue, though. > As I proposed the amendment at last years AGM, I should point out that > there were a number of ways available to me of approaching the motion put > by Alex, all of which can best be described as 'Nuclear Options'. Well, I think this is what Tom was talking about, when we get to AGM we should have proposals for which support is generally well known. Those proposals should then stand or fall on whether or not the proposers can convince the members of their usefulness. Nuclear options shouldn't be needed; I guess sometimes people will disagree on whether or not something is the right way to proceed, and debate is the right way to handle that. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
